SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the no-one's-leaving-until-we-have-unanimous-agreement dept.
The rise of populism has rattled the global political establishment. Brexit came as a shock, as did the victory of Donald Trump. Much head-scratching has resulted as leaders seek to work out why large chunks of their electorates are so cross.
...
The answer seems pretty simple. Populism is the result of economic failure. The 10 years since the financial crisis have shown that the system of economic governance which has held sway for the past four decades is broken. Some call this approach neoliberalism. Perhaps a better description would be unpopulism.Unpopulism meant tilting the balance of power in the workplace in favour of management and treating people like wage slaves. Unpopulism was rigged to ensure that the fruits of growth went to the few not to the many. Unpopulism decreed that those responsible for the global financial crisis got away with it while those who were innocent bore the brunt of austerity.
2017 Davos says: The 99% should just try harder.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:36PM (4 children)
Unpopulism meant tilting the balance of power in the workplace in favour of management and treating people like wage slaves.
Whereas populism means handing power to egalitarian, salt-of-the-earth, saints like hereditary property tycoons or the far right wing of the UK Conservative party, who we can trust to fight selflessly for the rights of the working masses...
They don't have to perfect, they merely need to appear better than the alternatives. And let's face it, by not having credible policies on key populist issues (such as immigration control which was the decisive factor in both Brexit and the Trump election), their opponents have conceded a great deal of ground.
What populism is actually achieving is weakening any large, powerful centre-rigtht/center-left blocs who try to temper capitalism with liberal/social values - like the US Federal Government or the European Union - and might just be big enough and ugly enough to stand up to big, international corporations and oligarchs.
Yes, that is a pleasant silver lining to this. Frankly, I think "big, international corporations and oligarchs" are just an Emmanuel Goldstein ruse, something to distract us with a two minute hate, while the true powers slowly take over. After all, the main threat of large businesses is that they can be used against us by the governments that control them. Weakening the largest governments helps reduce the potential harm.
And it's telling that the first serious democratic challenges in a while to this takeover are so viciously attacked. Democracy isn't pretty, but we should be glad when it works as advertised.
But, hey, I'm no millionaire but I'm lucky enough to have a small, portfolio which has been doing really, really well since the Brexit vote (of course, in 2 years time when Brexit actually happens and the pigs come home to roost in Trumpton it may be a different story, but yay for diversified portfolios) - so enjoy the 0.01% interest on your cash savings and when your car factory re-locates to Poland and May outsources the entire benefit and healthcare system to a Cayman Islands services company, don't blame me - I voted for Kodos. Except... no, I don't think that. I think it would be a bloody tragedy and I will be really, really happy if I turn out to be wrong.
Trump has been good for my US-based folio too. We'll see if pigs roost or not. But Trump at least has a pretty small hurdle to meet - reverse most of the policies of Obama and don't be terrible economically for however many terms he can cling on.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:05PM (3 children)
"I think "big, international corporations and oligarchs" are just an Emmanuel Goldstein ruse, something to distract us with a two minute hate, while the true powers slowly take over."
Actually, I think those corporations are just a front for the "true powers". Who are they, anyway? Well, look at "old money" first. Maybe some "new money" families count themselves among the elite, but the elite would look down on them.
http://yournewswire.com/former-kissinger-ceo-says-the-world-is-run-by-30-families/ [yournewswire.com]
https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/photos/the-world%E2%80%99s-richest-families-revealed/ss-BBmRgsr#image=1 [msn.com]
Hmmmm - who owns Monsanto, anyway? No, I don't mean small time stock holders - who owns and controls Monsanto?
http://naturalsociety.com/who-are-really-the-top-shareholders-of-monsanto/ [naturalsociety.com]
People like to talk nasty about Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s CEO, and obviously a shareholder. The same goes for Bill Gates. He purportedly owns millions of shares of Monsanto stock as well. But who are the real owners of Monsanto? The answer might be shocking.
The real owners of Monsanto stock are institutions, and people who hide behind those institutions, not individuals like Gates and Grant. According to multiple sources, five investment funds are the top shareholders in Monsanto, with the Vanguard Group, Inc. at the top. You can view the rest below.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:50PM
Maybe add to that list some companies that are just NEVER in the news:
Schlumberger [wikipedia.org] (everything you need to drill for oil),
Cargill [wikipedia.org] (agribusiness on the scale of Soylent Green)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:57PM
The real owners of Monsanto stock are institutions, and people who hide behind those institutions, not individuals like Gates and Grant. According to multiple sources, five investment funds are the top shareholders in Monsanto, with the Vanguard Group, Inc. at the top. You can view the rest below.
I agree. I believe institutional investors are one of the key drivers for short term thinking in business today. It's not their money and hence, they ultimately aren't interested in the long term success of the business. But I don't think these people are "family". What I see here is the rise of the power of well-connected, unaccountable bureaucracies with government bureaucracies the worst of the lot.
The NSA isn't trampling the civil liberties of the world because it is running errands for the Rothschilds or whatever. It's because they can.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @10:47PM
They even got their own "brand name" "designed" by their staff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonomy [wikipedia.org]