There is not a huge bulk of middle class. That was my point. About 75% of people make less than the mean income. About 50% of people make less than HALF of the mean income, i.e. the median is half the mean. The mode (the amount that the largest group makes) is close to half of the median, or a quarter of the mean. The vast, vast majority of people are way, way below average. — Pfhorrest

I don't think the mean income has any meaning in a distribution where the high figures are so huge compared to the lower ones. What are the actual figures? I think in the UK poverty is defined as half the median, but I'm guessing there's less income inequality here than in the US - although the gap has probably narrowed over the last decade.

I think a lot of the frustration that breeds fertile ground for populist seeds to root comes from a sense of powerlessness. People don't mind others getting on, but they mind having no means to improve their lots, and being vulnerable to the greed of others. The 2008 crisis, where a small number of bankers played fast and loose - effectivley with the western economies, has left a huge amount of anger. Why should ordinary people trust these 'elites', when it's clear they're irresponsible and only out for ther own good? We've also had a scandal here where MPs were found to be cheating on their expense claims - some claiming money for ludicrous reasons. That too dented public confidence, although compared to other countries where corruption is endemic we probably have it good.

The referendum on leaving the EU here produced a surprise 'leave' result. The extent to which people wanted to kick the establishment was not recognised. But there is a view that especially among the older generation part of the reason for the leave vote was people wanting to turn the clock back, to return to a pre-globalised economy, to 'get our country back'. The naiivety of this view is clear but that doesnt stop it persisting. Most people are still tied to the view of 'their' nation state repelling foreign invaders when necessary. This is surely another good chord for populists to strike, as many have.

I don't think the mean income has any meaning in a distribution where the high figures are so huge compared to the lower ones. What are the actual figures? — Tim3003

That huge difference between high and low figures is exactly what I'm talking about, and what makes it the case that the vast majority of people would benefit greatly from something that just moved them closer to average: because only a tiny number of people get most of the money. Approximate figures from memory: the mean personal income is about $50k/yr (which falls at about the 75th percentile), the median personal income is about $25k/yr, and the mode personal income (that I recall less clearly) is about $13-15k/yr. (I remember it being just slightly more than half the median). Household income figures (more commonly reported) are about twice that, because households on average have about two people in them.

I think in the UK poverty is defined as half the median, but I'm guessing there's less income inequality here than in the US - although the gap has probably narrowed over the last decade. — Tim3003

I think the poverty line in the US is defined at the bottom quintile.

Most people are still tied to the view of 'their' nation state repelling foreign invaders when necessary. — Tim3003

What's wrong with that?

I think the poverty line in the US is defined at the bottom quintile. — Pfhorrest

Which btw shows how absolutely useless it is as a mark of povetry: no matter what happens there is a bottom quintile. It says nothing about actual povetry or how prosperous we are than earlier.

I think the governing principle is not whether there is a deficit, but how large it is, and whether it is less than the rate of inflation. So if inflation is at the 2% target and the deficit is 1.5% then the total debt is increasing at less than inflation - ie decreasing in real terms. Interest rates also have a bearing. As they are now so low both govt and opposition are happy to borrow more. Infact they are talking about instituting new targets for the annual repayment of debt as a % of gdp (I think of ~3% for the Tories and ~5% for Labour), rather than just aiming to limit the size of the deficit. — Tim3003

Good argument support and thanks for informing me.

Even given this, is it safe to assume that austerity measures will have to be implemented again in a never ending cycle? However, why does austerity (or, strong desire for a balanced budget) go in waves? If it is important, shouldn't we make permanent changes? Is the austerity needed for a balanced budget anywhere near the austerity required for a balanced environment? (I get that as a whole, we have not decided we want a balanced environment...but I can also find plenty of economists that will argue that a balanced budget is not that important)

As you say, socialist policies would dominate if the easing of poverty was the populist view. — Tim3003

I think easing poverty is A populist view. I am a bit confused by THE populist view. Trump and Bernie are both populists. The populism of "the american dream" still just has more support than the populism of reducing poverty. (in America, things are different in Scandinavia) But it does feel like the populism of "billionaire's suck" is catching up with the american dream.

At this point, I am not sure if I am disagreeing with you or just addressing certain nuances of your argument? Oh well, feel free to set me straight :smile:

Populism isn't tied at all to the current situation. — ssu

Openly populist parties emphasize this and their idea of populism leaves out (at least officially) the crucial ingredient: that populism has the important division to "us" and "them" and that "they", the elite, the establishment, the powers at be, are against their ideas.

There's a distinct difference in saying normal democratic movement "We want this and the leaders should listen to us" and a populist movement "We want this and the leaders are against what we want". — ssu

I am confused. I thought the current situation is nothing but elite bashing. One side bashes government elites while the other is bashing corporate elites.

Hmmm, oh, you are specifically referring to Scandinavia? Where government and big business was on-board with greater social welfare systems?

Wouldn't they still be acting against international elites? Isn't socialism (ideally) against any type of "elite"? (which gets weird as surely there are still "elite" athletes, mathematicians, good looking people, or online forum administrators) Isn't any progressive tax system acknowledging that one type of "elite" exists?

I think this might be another example of me going overboard on minutia/semantics?

Populism is nothing new. In any election anywhere in the Western world there have always been attempts at exploiting the simplicity of the voters by inventing external threats and promising quick solutions to complicating problems.

The antipole of populism is always the establishment and its attraction is stability. People don’t get overly excited by it, but their conservative instinct make them lean towards what they already know.

These two opposing mechanisms are always present in a population. The establishment will normally have the upper hand until a time of crisis occurs or until it has exhausted its internal potential.

In all mature democracies we see how the established parties gradually move towards the middle where most of the voters are found. The major parties then become increasingly similar and that may cause an existential crisis within them. Why fight for one particular party or candidate when the others are almost the same? Enthusiasm wanes and more extreme populists take advantage of that.

This has been a gradual process in European countries during the last decades as most of them have seen the rise of populist parties.

In America there has always been a stronger element of populism within the established parties, which until recently kept full blown populism at bay. However, it was always latent, and with the accidental arrival of Trump, its potential was exploited.

I saw someone recently characterize the difference between left-wing populism (which is a thing) and right-wing populism something like this: both are ostensibly in favor of the common people against their elite rulers, but left-wing populists see the "common people" as the laboring classes (proletarians) generally and the "elites" as the wealthy ownership classes (bourgeoisie) generally, while right-wing populists see the "common people" as the "middle class" (petite bourgeoisie) of the "normal" national identity (race, language, religion, etc) within the country in question, and the "elites" as some nefarious international cabal of foreigners and their political puppets within the country in question. — Pfhorrest

I think that that's a fairly accurate albeit rough summary of the difference. However, some left populism doesn't vilify ownership so much as elected officials who knowingly act against the people when a conflict of interest arises between huge corporations or their own personal interests(these are often one in the same), and common people.

I think easing poverty is A populist view. I am a bit confused by THE populist view. Trump and Bernie are both populists. The populism of "the american dream" still just has more support than the populism of reducing poverty. (in America, things are different in Scandinavia) But it does feel like the populism of "billionaire's suck" is catching up with the american dream. — ZhouBoTong

Just to be clear: the populism I'm talking about is that espoused by Trump, the Brexit Party and others who promote nationalism at the cost of demonising immigrants. Other policies could be said to be based on what the people want or what is best for them, but that's not what I'm majoring on here.

Part of the reason for this thread is to discuss the point that far from giving the people what they actually want or need, this populism is a con whose primary aim is power for the leaders like Trump who preach it. Thus it's no more a force for improvement in society than was the credo of Hitler. If it spreads, as the increasing mobility of poor or war-ravaged populations seem to threaten it could, what will the future look like? The more public fear is whipped up the more dictators can seem acceptable as the antidote. I don't think it's coincidence that, whatever destabilising tactics the Russian use internationally, Trump unashamedly admires Putin..

Just to be clear: the populism I'm talking about is that espoused by Trump, the Brexit Party and others who promote nationalism at the cost of demonising immigrants. Other policies could be said to be based on what the people want or what is best for them, but that's not what I'm majoring on here. — Tim3003

I agree that this type of populism thrives on people not knowing what is best for them. But I would still argue that Trump is often giving the people (those people) EXACTLY what they want (demonizing immigrants).

Thus it's no more a force for improvement in society than was the credo of Hitler. — Tim3003

A hammer can be a force for improvement or a force for destruction.

I get (now) that the points I have brought up are not what you are hoping to discuss in this thread, and so I will stop. I should at least make an effort to address the points you care about so here goes:

If it spreads, as the increasing mobility of poor or war-ravaged populations seem to threaten it could, what will the future look like? — Tim3003

I agree this would be a problem, but what can be done about it? I feel there is just as much anti-Trump (anti-brexit, anti-(white)nationalism, etc) sentiment out there. Either people accept the ideas or not? We may have some power of persuasion over people that care about us, I have talked my Mom out of voting Republican - at least for now - and I am making progress with my Dad, but I doubt I have convinced anyone online. Except for some fairly extreme authoritarian policies (which I am open too, but I get that most Americans and many others are strongly opposed), how would we prevent the spread?

The only positive it seems, is that as the right gets more extreme, people are more open to extreme left positions. Who would have thought 20 years ago we would have mainstream candidates that are openly advocating socialist policies? (100 years ago it looked possible, but things shifted strongly in the opposite direction in the 80s)

The more public fear is whipped up the more dictators can seem acceptable as the antidote. I don't think it's coincidence that, whatever destabilising tactics the Russian use internationally, Trump unashamedly admires Putin.. — Tim3003

And stuff like this is how we can convince those open to convincing (typically just those who care about us). Trump's admiration of Putin is perhaps the major reason my Dad will NOT vote for Trump (again, ugh) in 2020. You just have to phrase it like a populist (haha): "so paying 1.3% less in taxes this year is worth our President being buddies with Putin (the murdering, ex kgb, thief, richest man in the world, tyrant)."

What are your thoughts on how things get better? Or is this thread highlighting your fear that things are unlikely to improve?

I am confused. I thought the current situation is nothing but elite bashing. One side bashes government elites while the other is bashing corporate elites. — ZhouBoTong

Well, those who have bashed in history government and corporate elites have been, just to give some examples, a) communists b) national socialists, c) various socialists, d) Occupy Wall street-movement, e) Tea party-movement, f) Trump supporters, g) Brexiteers... and the list goes on.

That's a quite varied group with perhaps the only thing common for them is the idea of the evil elites. That's my point.

Wouldn't they still be acting against international elites? — ZhouBoTong

Once populists are in power, they surely change the focus from evil domestic elites to evil international elites. Populism needs a culprit, an adversary or an enemy.

I agree that this type of populism thrives on people not knowing what is best for them. But I would still argue that Trump is often giving the people (those people) EXACTLY what they want (demonizing immigrants). — ZhouBoTong

What Trump and other populists give people is what they feel they want. ie feel, from their uneducated fear-propelled guts. His means is to exploit base fears, not to educate in the realities of the situation, its perspective, or what future knock-on effects short-termist policies can have. Populism is a politics not of reason but of ignorance and fear. That's what separates it from communism, socialism, liberalism, all of which have some philosophiccal basis which their politicians can hope voters learn and agree with rationally.

I'm sure Trump's supporters don't especially want to hate immigrants, but they are scared into seeing immigrants as threats to their jobs and culture, and their fear is whipped into prejudice and nationalism by liars and distorters like Trump. That's happened throughout history. Its human nature for the strong to exploit the weak I'm afraid.

Perhaps my fear is that despite the huge growth of internet communication and the potential raising in peoples' education, societies instead become more fear-based. The new tools of individually targeted (social) media news are used ever more accurately to misinform and so exploit fears. It's a trait of authoritarianism to manipulate the media and ensure only the 'right' news is published. In a world where no-one any longer trusts any news media outlet who is to be believed? Maybe only the 'reassuring' voice of the President?

The best hope of things getting better seems to me that populism fails to achieve its goals: ie Trump cannot bring sustainable jobs back form China and runs up a crushing trade deficit. The trouble is, that won't kill the ogre of nationalism and fear of foreigners, it may even make it worse.

I agree that this type of populism thrives on people not knowing what is best for them. But I would still argue that Trump is often giving the people (those people) EXACTLY what they want (demonizing immigrants).

Who claims to know what is best for these people? The “elites”. The “Davos man”. The elites, of course, live no where near these people, nor hardly interact with them unless it is to be served by them. And they would know what is best for us?

, every political movement ever has known what is best for the people.

Or have you heard about the political movement that declares that they don't know what's best for the people? :yikes:

Besides, the elite seldom truly thinks about what would be best for the people. It would be great if they actual would do that. But usually it's only this condescending snobbery of how stupid the common people are and how they don't get the complex issues at all, or take it the wrong way. And this snobbery can be seen on both sides of the political spectrum. Traditionalist conservative elites and the leftist cultural elites can equally look down upon the common man.

And of course, the common man usually isn't as interested and have as much knowledge of the most complex issues of politics.

The “Davos man”. — NOS4A2

Does the Davos man really exist? Really? There can be people that are invited to the "World Economic Forum" and go there on a usual basis, but in the end this hodgepodge of rich and powerful people don't truly share the same agenda or objectives. That's the conspiracy bullshit of Alex Jones. If you just listen for a while the panels, it ought to be obvious that they don't all agree on what to do. It's actually a perfect example of the conspiratorial side of populism.

Or have you heard about the political movement that declares that they don't know what's best for the people? :yikes:

Besides, the elite seldom truly thinks about what would be best for the people. It would be great if they actual would do that. But usually it's only this condescending snobbery of how stupid the common people are and how they don't get the complex issues at all, or take it the wrong way. And this snobbery can be seen on both sides of the political spectrum. Traditionalist conservative elites and the leftist cultural elites can equally look down upon the common man.

And of course, the common man usually isn't as interested and have as much knowledge of the most complex issues of politics.

But the “common man” knows what’s best for himself is my point. The idea that people vote against their best interests is, as you said, snobbery. The accusation could be just as easily used against them.

Does the Davos man really exist? Really? There can be people that are invited to the "World Economic Forum" and go there on a usual basis, but in the end this hodgepodge of rich and powerful people don't truly share the same agenda or objectives. That's the conspiracy bullshit of Alex Jones. If you just listen for a while the panels, it ought to be obvious that they don't all agree on what to do. It's actually a perfect example of the conspiratorial side of populism.

You listen to Alex Jones?

I use “Davos man” strictly as a term of derision. What I can say of them is they have enough power and wealth to affect vast communities of human beings while being at the same time wealthy enough to avoid the barriers they set for others, and to abandon ship if their schemes go awry.

But the “common man” knows what’s best for himself is my point. The idea that people vote against their best interests is, as you said, snobbery. The accusation could be just as easily used against them. — NOS4A2

And let's not forget that the Common Man is simply a myth.

The Common Man is both a Republican and a Democrat in the US, both an active voter and someone who hasn't bothered to vote. To say that the 'common man' thinks this or that is as wrong as to think that the 'poor' or the 'middle class' or the 'upper class' thinks in one certain way.

You listen to Alex Jones? — NOS4A2

Few times I listened to him, but not anymore. I always thought of him as entertainment and someone that has found his niche audience in the American media field. First he was all about 9/11 conspiracies and even didn't notice the financial crisis. Only when it had long started, Jones added economics into the conspiracies (which actually was telling). But then with the Trump candidacy Mr Jones went to become a true Goebbels like propagandist. Perhaps it's the "logical" response to a person that believes in vast conspiracy theories: if you believe everything is propaganda, then you'll do the same and simply create classic propaganda yourself too. Anyway, there is this problem with the conspiracy buffs: they are an extremely intolerant crowd that isn't open to other kind of ideas (starting from the idea that historical events can happen without anyone actually planning them).

I use “Davos man” strictly as a term of derision. — NOS4A2

Well, for many he exists. Just like the Cultural Marxist that has lurked in the universities and planned all the wokeness and political correctness we see everywhere now.

And let's not forget that the Common Man is simply a myth.

The Common Man is both a Republican and a Democrat in the US, both an active voter and someone who hasn't bothered to vote. To say that the 'common man' thinks this or that is as wrong as to think that the 'poor' or the 'middle class' or the 'upper class' thinks in one certain way.

My point was that each individual, no matter how you classify them, knows what’s in his best interests better than some aloof technocrat who spent his whole life in a classroom. I’d rather be governed by those who work in my local grocery store than the entire faculty at Harvard.

Anyway, there is this problem with the conspiracy buffs: they are an extremely intolerant crowd that isn't open to other kind of ideas (starting from the idea that historical events can happen without anyone actually planning them).

The only intolerant bigots are those who ban others. The intolerant crowd colluded in one concerted effort to have him removed from platforms.

My point was that each individual, no matter how you classify them, knows what’s in his best interests better than some aloof technocrat who spent his whole life in a classroom. I’d rather be governed by those who work in my local grocery store than the entire faculty at Harvard. — NOS4A2

And that's why we have a representative democracy in our republics. And unlike the US, here we don't even have things like felony disenfranchisement.

The only intolerant bigots are those who ban others — NOS4A2

Call it a ban or not, but the conspiracy buffs don't take it lightly when someone that has argued that one conspiracy is true then states that another one isn't. Or that the government / security system performs well in other issues or is correct in some other case. Likely he or she will be seen as a "turncoat" who has "sold" the cause, gone over back or perhaps been always on the other side. Once your audience and income depends on a specific crowd, then you will shape your message to that crowd.

What Trump and other populists give people is what they feel they want. ie feel, from their uneducated fear-propelled guts. His means is to exploit base fears, not to educate in the realities of the situation, its perspective, or what future knock-on effects short-termist policies can have. Populism is a politics not of reason but of ignorance and fear. That's what separates it from communism, socialism, liberalism, all of which have some philosophiccal basis which their politicians can hope voters learn and agree with rationally.

I'm sure Trump's supporters don't especially want to hate immigrants, but they are scared into seeing immigrants as threats to their jobs and culture, and their fear is whipped into prejudice and nationalism by liars and distorters like Trump. That's happened throughout history. Its human nature for the strong to exploit the weak I'm afraid. — Tim3003

This positioning of “Trump supporters”, whatever that is, as “uneducated” seems a little lazy. You’d need to define “educated” first and then, I suspect, your definition would be biased. There’s a feeling, or attitude, towards these people that they’re not educated well enough to vote, that they’re not smart enough. Let’s ignore the fact that you can’t lump Trump supporters into one basket. If I was one of those people I might begin to suspect that you might think it’s a good idea if I didn’t vote, to take that right away from me. If I felt that way which way do you think I might vote next time?

But there is a view that especially among the older generation part of the reason for the leave vote was people wanting to turn the clock back, to return to a pre-globalised economy, to 'get our country back'. The naiivety of this view is clear but that doesnt stop it persisting. — Tim3003

This comment is streaked with vague sort of surface facts that suggest something but when you read it amounts to nothing but a bias or prejudice. So it’s not just a Trump supporters who are the problem, but the older generation as well?

“ there is a view ”. Whose view?

“ part of the reason for the leave vote ”. What part? Was it a minor part or major part?

“ The naiivety of this view is clear”. The view they’re supposedly naive about is the view you ascribe to them. And what’s clear about it?

Like your view of a Trump supporters you ascribe your perception of the older generation then argue with that to prove them wrong.

Perhaps their point of view is not from naivity but a view born of long term observation and experience.

The elites, of course, live no where near these people, nor hardly interact with them unless it is to be served by them. And they would know what is best for us? — NOS4A2

Well potentially yes, in the same way that a doctor knows best as to how to treat a sick or injured person (doesn't the sick person know himself better than the doctor?). There are a lot of different kinds of "elite".

Perhaps my fear is that despite the huge growth of internet communication and the potential raising in peoples' education, societies instead become more fear-based. — Tim3003

As education has become more democratized and accessible, society has become increasingly demanding that all opinions and ideas have value. From here, we have grown to the point that all opinions have nearly equal values. As long as we continue to foster this idea (and it is heavily fostered - young people are constantly reminded that they have valuable opinions), then rhetoric like that used by populists will thrive (as it is the most effective means of persuading people).

While we have increased the amount of education received by the average person, at no point do we do emotional training (or perhaps more accurately, anti-emotional training). If people are unaware of the power of their emotions, then they will be controlled by them...and a good speaker can target those emotional responses without having to say anything of substance.