Mark Blyth: "Global Trumpism" And The Revolt Against The Creditor Class

[DA60]

As a reactionary institution, with a strict dual policy mandate, the government as the initiator of policy and economic direction has means of influencing Fed policy beyond appointment (which is rather considerable), albeit indirectly. I do think the Fed should probably be reformed per the central banking institutions of other countries; it has always made me deeply uncomfortable that it has such an explicit private and unaccountable component.


That having been said, it will be difficult to get properly limited government without divorcing money from politics; that is the root and the key. Monied interests are rather happy with their pork and special concessions and won't be keen to give them up; they might slash regulations they feel impede their profits, but I very much doubt they will voluntarily forfeit regulatory capture, pork, tax loopholes and the like that are of so much benefit to them, and so long as they can pay for influence, to expand government in capacities that benefit them, and cut it in ways that don't, they will. Real democracy starts with making politicians more accountable to the people than private donors.

Again...how can you do that? Like I said, corporations can just promise politicians tons of money/power/favors once the latter leave office. It is virtually impossible to stop it.

The solution, imo, is to limit the power of the politicians...not try and make them more honest.

Lastly, I do not believe that all federal governments are extremely corrupt barring proof such as say something like this: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I simply do not see the evidence that every government to the last is hopelessly and deeply corrupt.

I did not say 'hopelessly'.

And considering - as I stated above - the myriad ways for politicians to be rewarded by corporations - it is virtually impossible to stop it.

IMO, every major government in the world is deeply corrupt. America, the U.K., France, Germany, China, Japan, Russia...90+% of major politicians in these countries (imo) work for the rich and only give lip service to the poor. Obviously some are worse than others.
Almost all major politicians are rich. And the rich look after the rich...just like people look after their friends first...that is human nature.


By limiting the power of government/central banks, you automatically give back power to the people.

You cannot fight human nature with more rules and laws...people will ALWAYS find a way around them if they want to badly enough.

 

[Mac77]

His point is that it's undeniably a segment of the coalition which is true; hell, in his lecture which I linked, he explicitly breaks down causation as being attributable to both racial elements and economic ones, and racial elements/tensions derived from economic ones (particularly anti-immigration), with more weight being given in balance to economic factors.

Liberals are the greatest cause of racial tension in America and have been basically since the baby boomer generation came of age.

It is undeniable that there is great hatred among black people and guilt-ridden white liberals toward all whites for slavery and Jim Crow that ended before most of the boomer generation was out of diapers.

So millions of minorites walk around resentful and angry toward whites and then accuse whites who "never dun nuthin'" to them as being racists

And for that slander against trumpsters that he could not resist making this liberal professor steps on his own message about economics where he actually does not sound quite so stupid after all.

Now if you want to discuss the race problem or the economic problem I am available

Or if you just want to blow me off as a hopeless lowbrow white conservative thats ok too.

 

[Gaztopian]

While I appreciate the eloquence of the author in question and his acumen in political economy, it doesn't take a genius to figure that much out; it only requires a sober spectator of contemporary politics that has a degree of firsthand experience with the plight of the little man.

Throughout the election season, I was unabashed in my contempt for Hillary's strident leftist opponents out of an understanding of the danger Trump poses to the U.S and the world at large and of what his victory would signify: the triumph of abject and malignant human trash. I happened to listen to the threadbare rants of one such political commentator in which he made the same asinine claim that Trump and Obama are one and the same. Nevertheless, he inadvertently finished his rant with a mind-opener, when he said "people are afraid of the end of the world now that Trump has won, but the end of the world is already here for so many people, and it's been here for many years".

 

[joG]

Naturally you might disagree with his economics on a partisan basis as appears to be the case (layman saying that this ivy league professor who studies and teaches international political economics professionally has a 'poor understanding of economics'); that said I don't think the fundamentals of his argument, also economically rooted in terms of globalization, deunionization and massive expansion of the labour pool via free trade agreements and the like as a means of marginalizing the power of labour in terms of causation are particularly disputable even if you don't agree with his prescription.

Obama like Trump was indeed a symptom of this; he was voted in specifically to bring change and reform to the system on the back of populist frustration, he pretended at progressivism, and instead delivered more of the same; I fear we'll get the same with Trump in light of his appointments which have given me serious cause for pessimism; the same, or perhaps worse.

Well, no. It is not on a partisan basis that I disagree with his economics. Political Economy is the operational word there. It indicates a particular view on economics that is biased. Globalization does mean a travers to a new optimum that achieves higher general welfare over time. It is like any disruptive technology in creating winners and losers. But the solution is not stopping it, but making the shift possible without losing the stability of the general system. Crying about the loss of power of unions will not do that.

In any event, there is no real reason for OECD countries' populations to complain. They are relatively well off, where their politicians have not made a mess of it like in Southern Europe.

 

[Surrealistik]

Well, no. It is not on a partisan basis that I disagree with his economics...

He never actually prescribed reversing or stopping globalism; you are confusing his assessment of causation with prescription. His ideas are more about making the irreversible trend of globalism/automation work for everyone through measures of proper tax enforcement, (more) progressive taxation (because increasingly these things mean a smaller and smaller segment of the population will have a larger and larger share of income) and social spending/minimum income schemes or similar in so far as I've seen him offer solutions.

And yes, they do have plenty of reason to complain; wages are becoming disinflationary or even stagnant in real terms and struggle to keep pace with the cost of living; in general the economic prospects for the majority of people in the developed world are declining at various rates as inequality rises and a greater and greater portion of economic gains accrue to fewer and fewer people, while jobs continue to be automated/exported, and the ones that remain are seeing increasing competition and thus downward wage pressures from those displaced by these trends and immigration (which feeds xenophobic/alt-right sentiment). It's just not that their prospects are less than they were, but that they will continue to be for the foreseeable future because governments are simply not taking the proper steps to champion the well-being of the average person in the wake of globalizing trends.

Liberals are the greatest cause of racial tension in America and have been basically since the baby boomer generation came of age...

Saying it's 'all the liberals' is about as constructive and accurate as people who claim that Trump won exclusively or primarily off the back of racism which Mark never said.

Again...how can you do that? Like I said, corporations can just promise politicians tons of money/power/favors once the latter leave office. It is virtually impossible to stop it.

The solution, imo, is to limit the power of the politicians...not try and make them more honest.

By limiting the power of government/central banks, you automatically give back power to the people.

But even if you felt that to be a solution you can't limit the power of politicians without first limiting money in politics which is my point, at least in a political climate like the States; the rich don't want to give up their special tax treatment, subsidies, pork, contracts, regulatory capture, etc.

I did not say 'hopelessly'.

I'd consider the assessment that countries are and forever will be deeply corrupt to be pretty close to an assertion of hopelessness.

And considering - as I stated above - the myriad ways for politicians to be rewarded by corporations - it is virtually impossible to stop it...

Yes, you will never completely stop it as I admitted, but you can absolutely limit it in practice. Wealthy countries with proper campaign finance, graft and lobbying controls in place tend to feature better levels of representation/democratic integrity and less corruption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

While I appreciate the eloquence of the author in question and his acumen in political economy, it doesn't take a genius to figure that much out; it only requires a sober spectator of contemporary politics that has a degree of firsthand experience with the plight of the little man.

Throughout the election season, I was unabashed in my contempt for Hillary's strident leftist opponents out of an understanding of the danger Trump poses to the U.S and the world at large and of what his victory would signify: the triumph of abject and malignant human trash...

Given the ongoing incredulity of so many pro-Hillary partisans, and even some independents, and in general the resistance among many segments of the Democratic party to take responsibility for Clinton's loss and the most salient reasons for it, I feel it's important to share an important and through autopsy such as the kind Mark provides; his observations are not especially difficult to make, but where they shine is in how well backed and explored they are. Personally while I was very much a Bernie supporter, I felt that between two absolutely **** choices, Hillary was probably the better option if only to avoid giving Trump and the GOP what would effectively be absolute power.

 

[DA60]

But even if you felt that to be a solution you can't limit the power of politicians without first limiting money in politics which is my point, at least in a political climate like the States; the rich don't want to give up their special tax treatment, subsidies, pork, contracts, regulatory capture, etc.

I am not against campaign reform. I am actually all for it. But too many people feel that is THE solution. I say it is not.

Tax treatment is simple...eliminate all tax deductions except charitable contributions and capital losses. The hyper rich don't care about income...they make most of their money from capital gains - which can be taxed FAR lower than income. So make income tax rates and capital gains tax rates EXACTLY the same. Please believe me...the rich will freak if you did that (which is a good thing).

As for the rest?

If you run balanced budgets, low taxes and have the Fed ONLY deal with inflation...I guarantee you that corruption in Washington would be lowered by at least 33-50%.

If Washington politicians have access to less money, they have less power. And if they have less power, corporations will waste less money/effort trying to bribe them.

 

[Surrealistik]

I am not against campaign reform. I am actually all for it. But too many people feel that is THE solution. I say it is not.

Tax treatment is simple...eliminate all tax deductions except charitable contributions and capital losses. The hyper rich don't care about income...they make most of their money from capital gains - which can be taxed FAR lower than income. So make income tax rates and capital gains tax rates EXACTLY the same. Please believe me...the rich will freak if you did that (which is a good thing).

As for the rest?

If you run balanced budgets, low taxes and have the Fed ONLY deal with inflation...I guarantee you that corruption in Washington would be lowered by at least 33-50%.

If Washington politicians have access to less money, they have less power. And if they have less power, corporations will waste less money/effort trying to bribe them.

No offense, but it is common sense.

But how do you get there in the first place? That's the thing.

Further, the potential for government power and governmental expansion remains, which is why I've always been skeptical of attempting to limit government as a solution, even though I feel it has some merit in certain regards. You need measures to limit private money in public office, otherwise you'll get politicians being funded to expand the state in all the wrong ways yet again.

 

[Mac77]

F

Saying it's 'all the liberals' is about as constructive and accurate as people who claim that Trump won exclusively or primarily off the back of racism which Mark never said.

The professor called trump supporters racists.

He didnt say how many and neither did I say ALL liberals as you accuse me of doing.

I wonder why an economics professor commenting on globalism felt the need to smear trump voters at all.

But he did

 

[DA60]

But how do you get there in the first place? That's the thing.

Further, the potential for government power and governmental expansion remains, which is why I've always been skeptical of attempting to limit government as a solution, even though I feel it has some merit in certain regards. You need measures to limit private money in public office, otherwise you'll get politicians being funded to expand the state in all the wrong ways yet again.

You pass a rock-hard, balanced budget amendment, you simplify the tax laws and you remove the ridiculous 'full employment' mandate from the Fed (leaving them with just inflation, more or less).

BTW, I am not saying cut welfare/healthcare for the poor. I say cut defense and welfare/government waste. That is how I want the budget balanced.

 

[Mac77]

You pass a rock-hard, balanced budget amendment, you simplify the tax laws and you remove the ridiculous 'full employment' mandate from the Fed (leaving them with just inflation, more or less).

BTW, I am not saying cut welfare/healthcare for the poor. I say cut defense and welfare/government waste. That is how I want the budget balanced.

Cut every government program equally across the board

 

[DA60]

Cut every government program equally across the board

I could live with that...outside of those programs that are life-and-death (like benefits for the disabled, injured veterans, food stamps for those who truly need it, emergency medical benefits for poor seniors/children, etc.).

 

[Fearandloathing]

You pass a rock-hard, balanced budget amendment, you simplify the tax laws and you remove the ridiculous 'full employment' mandate from the Fed (leaving them with just inflation, more or less).

BTW, I am not saying cut welfare/healthcare for the poor. I say cut defense and welfare/government waste. That is how I want the budget balanced.

"I say cut defense and welfare/government waste. ..."


I don't know if any Americans know this, but less than 16% and sometimes as little as 3% actually ended up in the hands of the people who were intend to benefit during Obama's "recovery". Some interesting information there that told me the entire NGO social welfare delivery system was organized like a rural church with mini-empires, ideology and meetings, meetings, meetings.

A sample of one outfit in Seattle that got something around a million to re-fit old homes with new, better insulation.
Not one home was refitted. The money was spent taking an inventory of the neighborhood and the 'deserving', definition of which took nearly a year. Then, they began studying regulations at the sate and civic level, each stage requiring full staff meetings [for which they are paid] and in the end ran out of money before getting anywhere.

There I will make a point for having a large enough bureaucracy to over-see such social programs, Canada's been in the handing out money business a lot longer, should have asked for advice

 

[Surrealistik]

You pass a rock-hard, balanced budget amendment, you simplify the tax laws and you remove the ridiculous 'full employment' mandate from the Fed (leaving them with just inflation, more or less).

BTW, I am not saying cut welfare/healthcare for the poor. I say cut defense and welfare/government waste. That is how I want the budget balanced.

But you will _never_ get that passed under this environment; you need first to get the money out of politics so the politicians are empowered to downsize, and keep things downsized in these respects.

F

The professor called trump supporters racists.

He didnt say how many and neither did I say ALL liberals as you accuse me of doing.

I wonder why an economics professor commenting on globalism felt the need to smear trump voters at all.

But he did

He was pretty explicit in his lecture on the subject about racism being only a component, and not even the most significant one of Trump's support.

 

[DA60]

"I say cut defense and welfare/government waste. ..."


I don't know if any Americans know this, but less than 16% and sometimes as little as 3% actually ended up in the hands of the people who were intend to benefit during Obama's "recovery". Some interesting information there that told me the entire NGO social welfare delivery system was organized like a rural church with mini-empires, ideology and meetings, meetings, meetings.

A sample of one outfit in Seattle that got something around a million to re-fit old homes with new, better insulation.
Not one home was refitted. The money was spent taking an inventory of the neighborhood and the 'deserving', definition of which took nearly a year. Then, they began studying regulations at the sate and civic level, each stage requiring full staff meetings [for which they are paid] and in the end ran out of money before getting anywhere.

There I will make a point for having a large enough bureaucracy to over-see such social programs, Canada's been in the handing out money business a lot longer, should have asked for advice

I have long said that federal welfare programs should consist almost entirely of government-run shelters in regional centers (centres in Canada).

Almost anyone can walk in and get 3 meals a day, a bed to sleep in, have a shower and get basic/emergency medical/dental treatment...even basic clothes if they need it. Have it constantly patrolled by police. Even have those on welfare work the place (with bureaucratic overseers) in return for perks (like private sleeping rooms) to lower costs. And almost anyone - regardless of income - could use the facilities for as long as they wanted.
But you make the facilities VERY safe and VERY clean and provide everything one easily needs to survive...but not desireable or overly comfortable - so as not to encourage people to abuse it.

Welfare now is too much about handing poor people cash...ALWAYS a mistake (outside of the disabled). Welfare now is subject to gigantic abuse and (as you pointed out) ridiculous mismanagement.

Welfare should, imo, consist of giving people the actual things they need - not give them a bunch of money and then hope they spend it ONLY on what they need and not what they want (like cigarettes, booze and/or drugs).

 

[Fearandloathing]

I have long said that federal welfare programs should consist almost entirely of government-run shelters in regional centers (centres in Canada).

Almost anyone can walk in and get 3 meals a day, a bed to sleep in, have a shower and get basic/emergency medical/dental treatment...even basic clothes if they need it. Have it patrolled by police. Even have those on welfare work the place (with bureaucratic overseers) in return for perks (like private sleeping rooms) to lower costs. And almost anyone - regardless of income - could use the facilities for as long as they wanted.
But you make the facilities VERY safe and VERY clean and provide everything one easily needs to survive...but not desireable or comfortable - so as not to encourage people to abuse it.

Welfare now is too much about handing poor people cash...ALWAYS a mistake (outside of the disabled). Welfare now is subject to gigantic abuse and (as you pointed out) ridiculous mismanagement.

Welfare should, imo, consist of giving people the actual things they need - not give them a bunch of money and then hope they spend it ONLY on what they need and not what they want (like cigarettes, booze and/or drugs).

I don't know where you live, I suspect Ontario, but that is not the way here. I work in alcoholism and drug recovery as a volunteer and the focus is entirely different. Here, out of the gate, it is established "why" the individual is in need; usually drugs, but often others. Then a program of harm reduction and/or recovery is set out.
For those who choose to go the hard way - gimme money welfare - it's a damn hard road. You live in **** holes till you get assisted housing, and even then 'other' sources of income are needed.
Entering a program, starting as low as a "awakening'[what some of us call that moment when the junkie has the rig loaded at a safe injection site and says "no", or the semi-employed, complex problems alcoholic/addict in denial, there is a path. IMHO it is too narrow and too hard to climb, but it is there and it is happening.
In other areas we have come to accept that certain junkies will never stop, now, after five years of study we find that heroin is a much easier drug to control than methadone asking the question why aren't we prescribing heroin? One, I have known a few methadone users; not one of them could go without a "top up" of speed etc., soon declining into cheap wine.
No, with Vancouver's Downtown "Eastside" where from of issue is right there in your face, we have learned we simply can't hand money to do-gooders and hope for the best. We demand to see results as well, which leads to some unnecessary belt tightening and the recent decision to close an art studio/gallery for functioning mentally ill.
We haven't found all the answers but I can say, and this will surprise you, the welfare delivery system here is at least better than any church I have been involved with.
In closing, I ran a Social Enterprise for a number of years; creating jobs for people with barriers, on welfare, where they can earn and learn without having it clawed back. It's working. You may not think seven out of some 40 over eight years is note worthty, but knowing the extent of the problem it's a beautiful start ..

 

[Mac77]

"I say cut defense and welfare/government waste. ..."


I don't know if any Americans know this, but less than 16% and sometimes as little as 3% actually ended up in the hands of the people who were intend to benefit during Obama's "recovery".

Some interesting information there that told me the entire NGO social welfare delivery system was organized like a rural church with mini-empires, ideology and meetings, meetings, meetings.

A sample of one outfit in Seattle that got something around a million to re-fit old homes with new, better insulation.
Not one home was refitted. The money was spent taking an inventory of the neighborhood and the 'deserving', definition of which took nearly a year. Then, they began studying regulations at the sate and civic level, each stage requiring full staff meetings [for which they are paid] and in the end ran out of money before getting anywhere.

There I will make a point for having a large enough bureaucracy to over-see such social programs, Canada's been in the handing out money business a lot longer, should have asked for advice

Loyal obama voters may not know how he wasted the money but most obama critics do

It seems he lined the pockets of academics and community organizers

One item in the almost $1 trillion stimulas package was money to teach African men how to clean their penis.

Just what America needed to get us back on the road to recovery

 

[Mac77]

He was pretty explicit in his lecture on the subject about racism being only a component, and not even the most significant one of Trump's support.

Racism had NOTHING to do with trumps win over hillary

And it had no place in a scottish economic professors lecture on globalism

 

[Hawkeye10]

And all of those trade agreements that were signed –which is inevitable and we can never roll back. You know you can go on the web and type in: “WTO text.” And you'll find that it is a very long 700-page legal agreement that took years to negotiate between corporate interests, lawyers, lobbyists, with very little input from civil society. The same is true of the EU's agreements on capital movements, the banking union, take your pick.

And there was a moment when people began to figure out, for the past 30 years, going from 1985 until now, huge amounts of money have been generated in the global economy. And as we know from the work of Thomas Piketty and others, most of it has gone up to a tiny fraction of the population. There has been a huge amount of growth, but hardly anyone has seen any benefit.

BY DESIGN!

All these people showing anger towards the unwashed masses rising up in revolt after they finally figured this out is either born of ignorance, or reaction to the reaction of the con being uncovered......those who who do this betray that they are not on our side or are too dim to be awarded our ear.

 

[DA60]

I don't know where you live, I suspect Ontario, but that is not the way here. I work in alcoholism and drug recovery as a volunteer and the focus is entirely different. Here, out of the gate, it is established "why" the individual is in need; usually drugs, but often others. Then a program of harm reduction and/or recovery is set out.
For those who choose to go the hard way - gimme money welfare - it's a damn hard road. You live in **** holes till you get assisted housing, and even then 'other' sources of income are needed.
Entering a program, starting as low as a "awakening'[what some of us call that moment when the junkie has the rig loaded at a safe injection site and says "no", or the semi-employed, complex problems alcoholic/addict in denial, there is a path. IMHO it is too narrow and too hard to climb, but it is there and it is happening.
In other areas we have come to accept that certain junkies will never stop, now, after five years of study we find that heroin is a much easier drug to control than methadone asking the question why aren't we prescribing heroin? One, I have known a few methadone users; not one of them could go without a "top up" of speed etc., soon declining into cheap wine.
No, with Vancouver's Downtown "Eastside" where from of issue is right there in your face, we have learned we simply can't hand money to do-gooders and hope for the best. We demand to see results as well, which leads to some unnecessary belt tightening and the recent decision to close an art studio/gallery for functioning mentally ill.
We haven't found all the answers but I can say, and this will surprise you, the welfare delivery system here is at least better than any church I have been involved with.
In closing, I ran a Social Enterprise for a number of years; creating jobs for people with barriers, on welfare, where they can earn and learn without having it clawed back. It's working. You may not think seven out of some 40 over eight years is note worthty, but knowing the extent of the problem it's a beautiful start ..

First, I applaud that you volunteer.

I don't live in Ontario (I live in Canada and America...back and forth - my Mother was Canadian, my father British, but I mostly grew up in America. I can be a citizen in any one of those three countries)....I used to live in Ontario though.
I was a crack addict and knew many like me (though I never did heroin or meth - thank god).
I quit crack completely on my own and by myself. And everyone I know that has done so successfully did it the same way. You cannot coddle addicts..they just keep coming back for more. Addicts are the BIGGEST mooches in history. They just take and take until you stop giving. The absolute worst thing you can do for an addict is help them with anything but a hug, food, shelter and basic medical/dental. Addicts quit when they want to badly enough, not before.
Look at all the addicts that have been on programs for years, decades. They never get better because they do not have to.
And I cannot tell you the number of times that friends of mine would take their pay cheques, welfare checks or tax return checks from the government, go and get a motel room and blow the lot on crack and cheap escorts...and then feel like absolute **** for doing it (I had plenty of money back then, so I did not have that problem). If you give an addict cash...9 times out of 10 they will blow at least some of it on their addiction (drugs, booze, gambling, whatever).
The only things rehab places are good for are two types of people - the ones that are binging like mad and need a place to stop OR people who like being told what to do (and most addicts do NOT like being told what to do - they are rebels by nature). But to most addicts, they are useless as the reason addicts use is they are empty inside. Clinics cannot give you the love you lack or take away your horrible childhood...the addict has to do that themselves.
Needle exchanges and public health ideas are good ideas...but that is it for addicts. Give them a hug, a bed, some food and basic medical/dental (the latter they get in Canada anyway) and NOTHING else. And if they are strong, they will stop. And if they are not, they will not. And if they die, they die. But it is their life and their choice...they must make the choice to stop.
I resented people trying to help me quit - treating me like a child. I went to CA meetings and they were a total joke - did nothing for me whatsoever. I did drugs because I wanted to and I quit drugs when I wanted to. And if I want to kill myself with drugs - that is my business and no one else's.
If you treat an addict like a child - they will act like a child. You treat them like an adult and they might act like one.

I realize your intentions are good, but, imo, NEVER hold their hand...it's their problem, not yours.

 

[Fearandloathing]

First, I applaud that you volunteer.

I don't live in Ontario (I live in Canada and America...back and forth - my Mother was Canadian, my father British, but I mostly grew up in America. I can be a citizen in any one of those three countries)....I used to live in Ontario though.
I was a crack addict and knew many like me (though I never did heroin or meth - thank god).
I quit crack completely on my own and by myself. And everyone I know that has done so successfully did it the same way. You cannot coddle addicts..they just keep coming back for more. Addicts are the BIGGEST mooches in history. They just take and take until you stop giving. The absolute worst thing you can do for an addict is help them with anything but a hug, food, shelter and basic medical/dental. Addicts quit when they want to badly enough, not before.
Look at all the addicts that have been on programs for years, decades. They never get better because they do not have to.
And I cannot tell you the number of times that friends of mine would take their pay cheques, welfare checks or tax return checks from the government, go and get a motel room and blow the lot on crack and cheap escorts...and then feel like absolute **** for doing it (I had plenty of money back then, so I did not have that problem). If you give an addict cash...9 times out of 10 they will blow at least some of it on their addiction (drugs, booze, gambling, whatever).
The only things rehab places are good for are two types of people - the ones that are binging like mad and need a place to stop OR people who like being told what to do (and most addicts do NOT like being told what to do - they are rebels by nature). But to most addicts, they are useless as the reason addicts use is they are empty inside. Clinics cannot give you the love you lack or take away your horrible childhood...the addict has to do that themselves.
Needle exchanges and public health ideas are good ideas...but that is it for addicts. Give them a hug, a bed, some food and basic medical/dental (the latter they get in Canada anyway) and NOTHING else. And if they are strong, they will stop. And if they are not, they will not. And if they die, they die. But it is their life and their choice...they must make the choice to stop.
I resented people trying to help me quit - treating me like a child. I went to CA meetings and they were a total joke - did nothing for me whatsoever. I did drugs because I wanted to and I quit drugs when I wanted to. And if I want to kill myself with drugs - that is my business and no one else's.
If you treat an addict like a child - they will act like a child. You treat them like an adult and they might act like one.

I realize your intentions are good, but, imo, NEVER hold their hand...it's their problem, not yours.

You and I walk completely different paths. Congratulations on your recovery, but the truth is less than 1% can make it that way.
Having been an addict/alcoholic I know that every user is a walking con job, and make concessions. I also know AA, and NA aren't for everyone, and we will never have a 'cure' for heroin and opiates. [20 years working in addictions I find crack cocaine one of the easiest to beat, cigarettes the worst]

I was hard line like you, until I studied our harm reduction/safe injection site. It works, people stay alive long enough to get them treatment. After 20 years working as a volunteer in peer-to-peer recovery I have also come to learn that not everyone is the same, some guys can walk away from 35 years of smoking, some die of it. AA is said to be the best treatment regime, it's where Betty Ford sends you. But I have also come to know that AA doesn't work for everyone, nor does the 'abstinance model. I have come to know that people can work while using pot, we have a Mountie in that position. And I have come to know and see that a lot of people can lead a very normal life with controlled heroin, I have never seen a satisfied with methadone. Everything we try fails, so it is time to seek alternatives. And we are. Vancouver is a leader in alternative strategies, some have worked, some didn't and some are just starting to.

Conservatives have been trying to shut down these strategies even though they are working, for purely ideological reasons, which is not reasonable.

The US system locks everyone up, and look at the result; The US still consumes more illegal drugs than much of the rest of the world put together, you have the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized nation and the highest recidivism rate in the world, and they emerge better, more hardened criminals. The "war on drugs" is a complete joke; all it does is drive up profits for suppliers

 

[DA60]

You and I walk completely different paths. Congratulations on your recovery, but the truth is less than 1% can make it that way.
Having been an addict/alcoholic I know that every user is a walking con job, and make concessions. I also know AA, and NA aren't for everyone, and we will never have a 'cure' for heroin and opiates. [20 years working in addictions I find crack cocaine one of the easiest to beat, cigarettes the worst]

I was hard line like you, until I studied our harm reduction/safe injection site. It works, people stay alive long enough to get them treatment. After 20 years working as a volunteer in peer-to-peer recovery I have also come to learn that not everyone is the same, some guys can walk away from 35 years of smoking, some die of it. AA is said to be the best treatment regime, it's where Betty Ford sends you. But I have also come to know that AA doesn't work for everyone, nor does the 'abstinance model. I have come to know that people can work while using pot, we have a Mountie in that position. And I have come to know and see that a lot of people can lead a very normal life with controlled heroin, I have never seen a satisfied with methadone. Everything we try fails, so it is time to seek alternatives. And we are. Vancouver is a leader in alternative strategies, some have worked, some didn't and some are just starting to.

Conservatives have been trying to shut down these strategies even though they are working, for purely ideological reasons, which is not reasonable.

The US system locks everyone up, and look at the result; The US still consumes more illegal drugs than much of the rest of the world put together, you have the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized nation and the highest recidivism rate in the world, and they emerge better, more hardened criminals. The "war on drugs" is a complete joke; all it does is drive up profits for suppliers

Thanks, but I was addicted to cigs and booze and gambling...but crack was the key for me. Once I quit that...everything else eventually fell into place (cigs often made me physically sick - which helped). One thing that does make crack easier is a) it is not physically addictive in it's pure form and b) it is INCREDIBLY expensive. Meth is basically the poor man's coke (along with ritalin) - but that stuff is pure evil...toxic and hideous. And heroin is for flat out idiots/insane people...it IS VERY physically addicting (as you know).

I am not saying programs help no one. I just have seen too many people play the system for all they were worth and smile all along the way (I used to live in New West, Burnaby, Maple Ridge and Richmond, btw - I liked Richmond the best). I could not believe how mooching these people were.

But whichever works is fine.

I do agree that the War on Drugs is absolute madness. Make drugs legal and you will cut down on major crimes, prostitution and the prison populations like crazy. Sure, petty crime will go up, but major crime will dwindle...and people will not be afraid to get help.
All making drugs illegal does is create crime and massively help organized crime...nothing else. Like Prohibition was...it's absolutely insane.

 

[Surrealistik]

Racism had NOTHING to do with trumps win over hillary

And it had no place in a scottish economic professors lecture on globalism

He's not saying that Trump's win is owed to racism; he is saying that a segment of his supporters are, which is indisputably true; he's endorsed by the KKK and David Duke for ****s sake.

 

[Mac77]

He's not saying that Trump's win is owed to racism; he is saying that a segment of his supporters are, which is indisputably true; he's endorsed by the KKK and David Duke for ****s sake.

Why is he highlighting .000000001% of possible trump voters during an economic lecture on globalism?

The left, including this imported liberal from scotland, are doing everything they can to nullify or undermine Trump's win.

 

[Gaztopian]

Given the ongoing incredulity of so many pro-Hillary partisans, and even some independents, and in general the resistance among many segments of the Democratic party to take responsibility for Clinton's loss and the most salient reasons for it, I feel it's important to share an important and through autopsy such as the kind Mark provides; his observations are not especially difficult to make, but where they shine is in how well backed and explored they are. Personally while I was very much a Bernie supporter, I felt that between two absolutely **** choices, Hillary was probably the better option if only to avoid giving Trump and the GOP what would effectively be absolute power.

While some of the Clintonites' incredulity is veritable in its own right, a lot of it is either a defense mechanism or a form of outlash against leftist anger and blame that are tearing at the democratic party in a time of vulnerability. As a Bernie supporter, I doubt you'll share my sentiment, but the left is guilty of political cannibalism in a precarious time that doesn't afford them the luxury.

 

[Surrealistik]

While some of the Clintonites' incredulity is veritable in its own right, a lot of it is either a defense mechanism or a form of outlash against leftist anger and blame that are tearing at the democratic party in a time of vulnerability. As a Bernie supporter, I doubt you'll share my sentiment, but the left is guilty of political cannibalism in a precarious time that doesn't afford them the luxury.

To be honest, it needs to be torn apart and rebuilt; it is nakedly deluged in corruption; a hardcore Clinton partisan like Donna Brazile (fired from even CNN for passing the Clinton campaign debate questions) replacing the thoroughly venal DWS is a particularly glaring example of the persistence and sheer audacity of its debasement. What better time than now after all the political die have been cast, federal political office has been settled and the Democrats have suffered an edifying loss due to defunct neoliberal establishment politics and candidates? One of the few good things about this failure is that it lays bare the laughable inadequacy of the old guard and the Clintonites 'middle way', and provides the foundation and path back to being a party that represents its constituents, particularly the working and middle class, and their concerns more than monied donors.

That having been said it's important to note that political cannibalism/insurgency wasn't the primary cause of Clinton's loss so much as deserved distrust and dispassion with her as a candidate; the well founded perception that she and her establishment Dem peers are not in fact especially concerned with or connected to the plight and apprehensions of the average person. Poor turnout and flipping of the blue wall/Rust Belt says it all really; that the Democrats are no longer trusted as good faith representatives for those they have always claimed as their core supporters. Did tensions with Bernie contribute to that to some extent? Sure. But without a doubt the most culpable parties of all and by far are Clinton and the DNC.