Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 29 2017, @10:39AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:00AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:00AM (#486255) Journal

    You are factually incorrect, the people were duped through propaganda to hate Hillary more than was reasonable and still she won the popular vote. I didn't vote for her and she was a terrible candidate, but you are going too far in your assertions.

    Where was the facts in that section? Asserting someone was "duped"? You need evidence to make it a fact. And what level of hatred is reasonable for Clinton? And how does any of the above contradict Arik's post, even if it is true?

    I'll go the opposite way and say that if people knew what Trump's presidency would be like, even the first few months, then Hillary would have 100% won the election.

    You have to be joking. He had such a tough campaign slog in the first place because people thought his presidency would be even worse than it's been. Let us keep in mind that for the past year or so - once he became a threat to Clinton, he's been compared with Hitler. Well, it doesn't look to me like Trump is on track to eliminate the US Republic in a year's time. But I suppose by that he's just failing to meet expectations, eh?

    It wasn't about core values it was about money, Trump won on anti-immigration and bringing jobs back to the US.

    Which doesn't sound like money to me.

    The other pieces are minor and not quite as fundamentally different as you'd like to believe.

    Unless of course, you're wrong in your baseless assertion.