• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official post-2020 Democrats Thread - Dems in Disarray! Hot takes welcome here!

Can you cite your source?

Part of the reason that people hate big banks (and there are plenty of legitimate ones) is that they don’t actually understand what they do and the role they play.

I probably only grasp about half of it and I’m an above average educated person.

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/end-wall-streets-stranglehold-on-our-economy-70cf038bac76

Here’s the problem with the belief that helping Wall Street always helps the economy: it isn’t true. In recent decades, Wall Street has grown bigger and financial sector profits have gone from 10% to 25% of total corporate profits, but everyone else in America has lived through a generation of stagnant wages and sluggish economic growth. Even today, big banks are making record profits and handing out huge bonuses as average wages barely budge.

The purpose of the financial sector is to connect savers with borrowers as efficiently as possible and to spread risk. A growing financial sector can help the rest of the economy if it helps connect more people more efficiently and spreads risk more effectively. But, as several studies have shown, past a certain point, the growth of the financial sector undermines the rest of the economy by extracting money from it without producing any real value.
America is well past that point. For example, a recent study found that “when private credit grows to the point where it exceeds GDP, it becomes a drag on productivity growth.” Private credit in America has exploded past that benchmark — it’s been between 160% and 210% of GDP for the last twenty years. The study also found that “when the financial sector represents more than 3.5% of total employment, further increases in financial sector size tend to be detrimental to growth.” We’ve blown past that one, too — in 2016, the financial sector represented more than 5% of total employment.
Past these tipping points, the growth of the financial sector hurts the economy for a few reasons:
- It generates more of its profits from “non-interest income” — another word for fees that extract money from the rest of the economy.
- It tends to lead to over-investment in companies that are lower-productivity but have lots of collateral to lend against — like construction and property development — luring more businesspeople into those fields.
- It leads to under-investment in high-productivity manufacturing companies — like those in aerospace or computing — that are particularly reliant on research and development.
It lures talented people away from other more productive ventures, like starting businesses. For example, the year before the 2008 financial crisis, nearly half of Harvard’s graduating class took jobs in finance.
- To make matters worse, America’s financial sector is doing a poor job at performing its actual role in the economy. A good financial sector should give people a place to put their money, but an astonishing 25% of American households don’t have adequate access to a simple bank account. A good financial sector should move money quickly and cheaply, but it costs more today to “produce loans, bonds, and stocks” than it did a century ago, despite huge advances in technology. And a good financial sector should allocate capital efficiently, but since the mid-1990s, America’s financial sector has failed to provide capital to the companies with the most growth potential
.

We should start by transforming the private equity industry — the poster child for financial firms that suck value out of the economy.
Private equity firms raise money from investors, kick in a little of their own, and then borrow tons more to buy other companies. Sometimes the companies do well. But far too often, the private equity firms are like vampires — bleeding the company dry and walking away enriched even as the company succumbs.
 
^I've pulled out some excerpts but the opinion piece is much longer. Big Banks, and private equity in particular, is the leading non-governmental reason for income inequality.
 
Obviously the tweet is a 30,000 feet perspective and he concedes the caveats but context is important. The fact that Joe Cunningham got SC-1 to go blue for the first time in 38 years (even though it was only for two years) was based on campaigning as a centrist. A competent Republican running for that seat will always be the odds-on favorite.
 
Warren is stuck in the Senate because Charlie Baker gets to pick her replacement and has the political capitol to pick a Republican.

I'm fairly confident Charlie Baker would be out on his ass next election if he replaced Warren with a Republican. That said, its probably not worth the risk.

How about giving Collins some prestigious position, letting Governor Mills pick her seat then letting Collins go a couple months later.
 
If I were Biden, I would enact as many EOs as possible to help contain the pandemic and undo the damage from Trump. Then, tell the Senate that the EOs can continue, or they can pass a law to overhaul the rules for EOs for good. I'd also try to find a way to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine. Reworking the rules to force Congress to fill positions when they open and bring bills to a vote once they have passed one chamber are also important, but that won't get done until 2022 at the earliest. Basically, Biden needs to use the lack of rules to get things done and then re-establish the processes of an actual working government.
 
The campaign strategies needed is a very complex and dynamic topic depending on district. Moderate democrats in red districts get unfairly labeled with the socialist and radical left tags no matter what happens, but the more there are easy targets like defund the police tags, the harder it is for them to win. Though AOC is correct too, that foot on the ground, building progressive enthusiasm by digital marketing and targeting is needed as well and you have to build a democratic base to give people ideas to vote for. She too often though doesn't understand the challenges other democrats face though because she is in the safest of safe districts. Her only challenge is in a primary.
 
I'm fairly confident Charlie Baker would be out on his ass next election if he replaced Warren with a Republican. That said, its probably not worth the risk.

How about giving Collins some prestigious position, letting Governor Mills pick her seat then letting Collins go a couple months later.

The era of appointing senators to Cabinet positions should be over. Sessions and Jones should end it for good. It's not worth the risk and the other party isn't going to fall for it. Collins is a swing senator. That's about as powerful as it gets.
 
I'm fairly confident Charlie Baker would be out on his ass next election if he replaced Warren with a Republican. That said, its probably not worth the risk.

How about giving Collins some prestigious position, letting Governor Mills pick her seat then letting Collins go a couple months later.

He's in the middle of his second term, he has had as high as an 89% approval rating this year, and he got more votes than Warren during the 2018 election. Hence, he might have enough political capital to get away with it. If not, most MA Govs in recent history stop at two terms anyway. However, this hypothetical is irrelevant. Unless they're bigger gamblers than I suspect, the Democrats will keep Warren in the Senate.

As for the fever dream of nominating R Senators to cabinet posts, the only feasible one I've seen is Toomey because he's leaving in 2022 but he'd be Senate Banking Chair if they retain the majority so I doubt he'd go.
 
Yeah Warren and Sanders or any other Dem Senators with GOP governors are not getting cabinet positions. Biden basically already released that.
 
I was entirely joking about Collins.

Not worth arguing the hypothetical but living in Mass for 20 years I feel very strongly that Baker messing with Massachusetts' national representation would be the end for him politically in this state.
 
Obviously the tweet is a 30,000 feet perspective and he concedes the caveats but context is important. The fact that Joe Cunningham got SC-1 to go blue for the first time in 38 years (even though it was only for two years) was based on campaigning as a centrist. A competent Republican running for that seat will always be the odds-on favorite.

Running as a centrist to defeat a Republican in a more conservative district is a legitimate and logical strategy, but the deeper question is how a national party can logically support such drastically different and often opposing politics. It would be far more logical for Democratic “centrists” and Progressive “leftists” to keep a coalition between two separate parties, rather than both fighting to control the identity of a single party.
 
Running as a centrist to defeat a Republican in a more conservative district is a legitimate and logical strategy, but the deeper question is how a national party can logically support such drastically different and often opposing politics. It would be far more logical for Democratic “centrists” and Progressive “leftists” to keep a coalition between two separate parties, rather than both fighting to control the identity of a single party.

There is just no way this is possible in our duopoly winner take all system. I would love a more parliamentary system with more smaller parties that form working coalitions.
 
There is just no way this is possible in our duopoly winner take all system. I would love a more parliamentary system with more smaller parties that form working coalitions.

I agree with you. Under our current system it would require a fantastical form of armistice project between Democrats and a burgeoning third party, that will never happen.
 
Yeah. We're essentially there now. We just need to figure out how to sustain and grow the coalition around more issues than pro-choice, pro-science, anti-fascism, and a few others.
 
Yeah. We're essentially there now. We just need to figure out how to sustain and grow the coalition around more issues than pro-choice, pro-science, anti-fascism, and a few others.

I don’t think so. There’s no coalition because both ideologies are beholden to 1 single political and cultural infrastructure, which they both are trying to wrest control of - which is how downballot Dems in Conservative districts can blame their failures on progressive rhetoric, and Nancy Pelosi can go on national TV and completely dismiss and undermine the objectives of fellow progressive congressmen. A coalition would be to politely coexist with your relatives for 3 holidays a year. Being a leftist in the Democratic Party is like being housemates with the person who owns the house. They need our rent to pay the mortgage, but we can’t paint or put any nails in the walls, and we get reminded all the fucking time that it’s not our house.
 
I have some optimism about Joe. We’ll see if he at least tries to push some progressive policy. But goddamn do we need the Senate.
 
Republicans are going to go hard on budget austerity and the debt they helped create. They'll probably secretly hope we end up in a prolonged recession so they can use it to campaign for more tax cuts for "stimulus" and to gain power in 2022 and 2024. As a former republican, the party has no ideas or policy goals really other than to make their members and big donor supporters rich and maintain power.
 
I don’t think so. There’s no coalition because both ideologies are beholden to 1 single political and cultural infrastructure, which they both are trying to wrest control of - which is how downballot Dems in Conservative districts can blame their failures on progressive rhetoric, and Nancy Pelosi can go on national TV and completely dismiss and undermine the objectives of fellow progressive congressmen. A coalition would be to politely coexist with your relatives for 3 holidays a year. Being a leftist in the Democratic Party is like being housemates with the person who owns the house. They need our rent to pay the mortgage, but we can’t paint or put any nails in the walls, and we get reminded all the fucking time that it’s not our house.

Well paint the fucking house anyway. Don't ask for permission.
 
Obviously the tweet is a 30,000 feet perspective and he concedes the caveats but context is important. The fact that Joe Cunningham got SC-1 to go blue for the first time in 38 years (even though it was only for two years) was based on campaigning as a centrist. A competent Republican running for that seat will always be the odds-on favorite.

The republican who beat Joe Cunningham is one of the first female grads of the Citadel. Remember Shannon Faulkner from probably 25 years ago? Mace was in the next class. Not surprisingly, conservatives hated her and wanted her to drop out or die or something. Fast forward 25 years and Mace is running against something even worse...a democrat and they love her and vote her into office.
 
Back
Top