Are we entering a new poltiical era characterized by neo-nationalism?

[Cuckslayer]

Here me out before you vote. If we look at what's happening in Europe and the United States we're seeing a trend line where the center left (and to a lesser extent the center right) are slowly collapsing in favor of right wing populist and far left alternatives. Mark Blyth has some great lectures on this very topic on YouTube

 Some examples include:

•In the United States, the Democratic Party has failed to appeal to the white working class and as a result have lost control of all levels of both federal and state government. The Berneicrats are now attempting to take back full control of the Party.
•The Labour Party has now lost two elections in a row and Corbyn is now systemically cleansing the Party of all the New Labour Blairites.
•The success of the leftist nationalist parties SNP and Sinn Fein.
•Francois Hollande who is the leader of the Socialist center left Party in France currently has an approval rating hovering around 4%. The French Presidency next year will be decided between a far right winger in Le Pen and a staunch right winger in Fillon.
•In Spain you have the left wing Podemos Party which has, in the last two election cycles, quickly gained ground at the expense of Spain's center left Spanish socialist workers party and are poised to overtake them soon.
•Merkel who heads the center right CDU Party has been chancellor since November of 2005 and is poised to win the election yet again next year. Her only realistic vulnerability comes from the right wing alternative AfD siphoning off votes from them as they've been gaining momentum.
•Greece has the staunchly left wing Syriza ruling.
•Italy's center left Party headed by Renzi is now likely to face a serious opposition challenger in the 2018 election against Grillo's 5 Star movement which is a populist, protectionist, and eurosceptic Party. It also appears like Renzi's referendum on strengthening the Italian constitution is going to fail next week.

It appears like anti globalization, protectionism, nationalism, nativism, isolationism, eurosceptism, etc. are all on the rise in the western world.
Is there a backlash against globalization brewing in western first world countries? Will this trend line characterize the next decade?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yes and yes.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Atlas Forum: We Provide Original Commentary You Won't See Anywhere Else

[Cuckslayer]

Atlas Forum: We Provide Original Commentary You Won't See Anywhere Else

I posted this on Reddit as well.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Atlas Forum: We Provide Original Commentary You Won't See Anywhere Else

I posted this on Reddit as well.

My mind wasn't deceiving me! I thought I had already read this list somewhere.

[ag]

We are. And the only way out of this era seems to go right through WWIII. I guess, after 2-3 billion people die over a short period, the survivors will understand what globalization really meant for them. Will, probably, be enough for another 70 years of peace. Assuming, of course, there are any surivors.

[Cuckslayer]

We are. And the only way out of this era seems to go right through WWIII. I guess, after 2-3 billion people die over a short period, the survivors will understand what globalization really meant for them. Will, probably, be enough for another 70 years of peace. Assuming, of course, there are any surivors.

The negative downsides of globalization could've been prevented. The benefits of globalization have gone overwhelmingly to the uber wealthy of the world (along with the middle classes emerging in developing countries) at the expense of the poor and working class in Western Europe and the United States. Europe is especially hurt by the Euro and austerity measures.

[Dereich]

That is considered an "era"? I doubt this nationalism craze will last for more than a few years and will fizzle out once it gets its chance to fail at governance. I assume it'll be like the Pink Tide in Latin America; it'll sweep in, fail at accomplishing its goals and once an election or two go by order will be restored. Does that count as a whole era?

[Cuckslayer]

What is considered an "era"? I doubt this nationalism craze will last for more than a few years, maybe a decade or so, and will fizzle out once it gets its chance to fail at governance like the Pink Tide is doing in Latin America. Does that count as a whole era?

Neo-nationalism will last roughly a decade. An "era" similar to the Reagan/Thatcher revolution idea of an era. Except this time it'll be focused on populist nationalism.

[ag]

We are. And the only way out of this era seems to go right through WWIII. I guess, after 2-3 billion people die over a short period, the survivors will understand what globalization really meant for them. Will, probably, be enough for another 70 years of peace. Assuming, of course, there are any surivors.

The negative downsides of globalization could've been prevented. The benefits of globalization have gone overwhelmingly to the uber wealthy of the world (along with the middle classes emerging in developing countries) at the expense of the poor and working class in Western Europe and the United States. Europe is especially hurt by the Euro and austerity measures.

While there are problems with the euro design - that, by itself, is a purely local European project, not much very global about it. In everything else you are simply wrong - as wrong as you can possibly be, if you try to be wrong. Rank-and-file Europeans and Americans have been the major beneficiaries of globalisation: and, of course, they will be the major losers in what is to come. I mean, of course, friends of America and Europe in the third world, like myself, will also be among the losers: we have bet on the wrong horse, and now will have to explain why we have been consorting with the enemy. So, yeah, I am frucked - but so are you.

[Cuckslayer]

We are. And the only way out of this era seems to go right through WWIII. I guess, after 2-3 billion people die over a short period, the survivors will understand what globalization really meant for them. Will, probably, be enough for another 70 years of peace. Assuming, of course, there are any surivors.

The negative downsides of globalization could've been prevented. The benefits of globalization have gone overwhelmingly to the uber wealthy of the world (along with the middle classes emerging in developing countries) at the expense of the poor and working class in Western Europe and the United States. Europe is especially hurt by the Euro and austerity measures.

While there are problems with the euro design - that, by itself, is a purely local European project, not much very global about it. In everything else you are simply wrong - as wrong as you can possibly be, if you try to be wrong. Rank-and-file Europeans and Americans have been the major beneficiaries of globalisation: and, of course, they will be the major losers in what is to come. I mean, of course, friends of America and Europe in the third world, like myself, will also be among the losers: we have bet on the wrong horse, and now will have to explain why we have been consorting with the enemy. So, yeah, I am frucked - but so are you.

It's not just the currency (if that's all you're referring to) but the pursuit of austerity that hurts the economic well being of a country that's already on recession. It also doesn't help that when a country has a high dept:GDP ratio like Greece they're told to cut spending and/or raise taxes to pay back the debt even though it'll shrink GDP which makes the ratio bigger, etc. until Greece has lost anywhere from 23-30 percent of their GDP and the European central banks  barely let up with the austerity measures being imposed on them.

Globalization has hurt labor. Labor share do national income has plummeted. Free trade advocates will vouch for the fact that prices for goods are lower but they'll neglect that the price of services such as healthcare, housing, education, have all gone up to compensate. Sprinkle in some easy credit to compensate for the fact that median wages have been stagnant for 30 years and you get a credit crisis like the one in 2008. We then let our politicians bail out the banks assets while demanding that we the people have been living far beyond our own means and we must balance the budget now. So while the banks balance sheets remain stable and they get a bailout regular people must try to pay back debts on a balance sheet that's bloated from the credit they took on in the 2000's with little help from the government. They have virtually no wage growth to pay it back, inflation is low and won't ease the burden, and now they're getting less in government transfers or services and possibly paying higher taxes to now balance the budget all of a sudden.

This doesn't end well. That's how a Trumpian figure rises to power. The economic elites have reaped what they sewed.

[Lord Halifax]

We are. And the only way out of this era seems to go right through WWIII. I guess, after 2-3 billion people die over a short period, the survivors will understand what globalization really meant for them. Will, probably, be enough for another 70 years of peace. Assuming, of course, there are any surivors.

The negative downsides of globalization could've been prevented. The benefits of globalization have gone overwhelmingly to the uber wealthy of the world (along with the middle classes emerging in developing countries) at the expense of the poor and working class in Western Europe and the United States. Europe is especially hurt by the Euro and austerity measures.

While there are problems with the euro design - that, by itself, is a purely local European project, not much very global about it. In everything else you are simply wrong - as wrong as you can possibly be, if you try to be wrong. Rank-and-file Europeans and Americans have been the major beneficiaries of globalisation: and, of course, they will be the major losers in what is to come. I mean, of course, friends of America and Europe in the third world, like myself, will also be among the losers: we have bet on the wrong horse, and now will have to explain why we have been consorting with the enemy. So, yeah, I am frucked - but so are you.

Could you elaborate a bit on that? What he saying is the consensus view (new middle class in the developing world lifted out of poverty + growing inequality in the Western world, with the rich getting richer and the traditional working class getting marginalized). So just saying it is wrong leaves a big fat question mark.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

if your definition of "neonationalism" includes both trump/le pen types and snp types, it's not a very useful term ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ag]

We are. And the only way out of this era seems to go right through WWIII. I guess, after 2-3 billion people die over a short period, the survivors will understand what globalization really meant for them. Will, probably, be enough for another 70 years of peace. Assuming, of course, there are any surivors.

The negative downsides of globalization could've been prevented. The benefits of globalization have gone overwhelmingly to the uber wealthy of the world (along with the middle classes emerging in developing countries) at the expense of the poor and working class in Western Europe and the United States. Europe is especially hurt by the Euro and austerity measures.

While there are problems with the euro design - that, by itself, is a purely local European project, not much very global about it. In everything else you are simply wrong - as wrong as you can possibly be, if you try to be wrong. Rank-and-file Europeans and Americans have been the major beneficiaries of globalisation: and, of course, they will be the major losers in what is to come. I mean, of course, friends of America and Europe in the third world, like myself, will also be among the losers: we have bet on the wrong horse, and now will have to explain why we have been consorting with the enemy. So, yeah, I am frucked - but so are you.

Could you elaborate a bit on that? What he saying is the consensus view (new middle class in the developing world lifted out of poverty + growing inequality in the Western world, with the rich getting richer and the traditional working class getting marginalized). So just saying it is wrong leaves a big fat question mark.

It is, definitely, not a consensus view among economists - rather, a radical small minority view, most people believe to be nuts. I see no evidence of a dramatic increase in inequality in the Western world as a whole.

[ag]

This doesn't end well. That's how a Trumpian figure rises to power. The economic elites have reaped what they sewed.

Well, good, "elites" are done with. Now is the time for the "non-elites" to reap what they trully wanted: poverty, radical inequality, famine, war and death.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There is a certain growing emphasis on the nation and national sovereignty. This is different from older forms of nationalism in that it does not hold that the own nation is necessarily any better, but that the interests of the citizenry should be maintained.

     This is born out of a certain reaction to the current paradigm of liberal internationalism, and the leaders in that paradigm has shown itself altogether incapable of understanding or adequately responding to this reaction. This lack of adequate response has been a major factor in the success of Brexit and Trump. It's unlikely the list will end there, too.

[Lord Halifax]

This doesn't end well. That's how a Trumpian figure rises to power. The economic elites have reaped what they sewed.

Well, good, "elites" are done with. Now is the time for the "non-elites" to reap what they trully wanted: poverty, radical inequality, famine, war and death.

Surely, there must be an intermediate position between the hegemony of international finance and a total collapse of society. Other ways of organizing the economy, perhaps with a somewhat lower total economic output, which is then better distributed.

[Cuckslayer]

This doesn't end well. That's how a Trumpian figure rises to power. The economic elites have reaped what they sewed.

Well, good, "elites" are done with. Now is the time for the "non-elites" to reap what they trully wanted: poverty, radical inequality, famine, war and death.

There's not gonna be an apocalypse. When Reagan was elected people were terrified that he'd start a hot war with Russia or start a war with Iran over the hostage crisis.

Calm down.

[Lord Halifax]

This doesn't end well. That's how a Trumpian figure rises to power. The economic elites have reaped what they sewed.

Well, good, "elites" are done with. Now is the time for the "non-elites" to reap what they trully wanted: poverty, radical inequality, famine, war and death.

That sounds weird. If you take this OECD report it says that:
https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/49499779.pdf

"Over the two decades prior to the onset of the global economic crisis, real disposable household incomes increased by an average 1.7% a year in OECD countries. In a large majority of them, however, the household incomes of the richest 10% grew faster than those of the poorest 10%, so widening income inequality. Differences in the pace of income growth across household groups were particularly pronounced in some of the English-speaking countries, some Nordic countries, and Israel.1 In Japan, the real incomes of those at the bottom of the income ladder actually fell compared with the mid-1980s (Table 1).
In OECD countries today, the average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% – a ratio of 9 to 1. However, the ratio varies widely from one country to another. It is much lower than the OECD average in the Nordic and many continental European countries, but reaches 10 to 1 in Italy, Japan, Korea, and the United Kingdom; around 14 to 1 in Israel, Turkey, and the United States; and 27 to 1 in Mexico and Chile."

[ag]

This doesn't end well. That's how a Trumpian figure rises to power. The economic elites have reaped what they sewed.

Well, good, "elites" are done with. Now is the time for the "non-elites" to reap what they trully wanted: poverty, radical inequality, famine, war and death.

I hope you arestill arnd here in 3 years. I will remind you these words.

There's not gonna be an apocalypse. When Reagan was elected people were terrified that he'd start a hot war with Russia or start a war with Iran over the hostage crisis.

Calm down.

[Meclazine for Israel]

From the Italian referendum:

"Mainland Europe’s populist leaders are up in the polls in large part because of their promises to restore flagging economies, reverse the continuing trend of unemployment, stem the flow of migrants from the Middle East and Africa and, in some cases, even leave the EU."

The dramatic flow of economic migrants has been the elephant in the room for 12 months now.

[Middle-aged Europe]

We're not entering it, we're right in the middle of it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We're entering an era where 3rd way is being rejected. You can lose with a 3rd wayer or beat the right-wing populist with a progressive like Austria did.

[White Trash]

Yes/yes. And I'm totally in support of it.

[DavidB.]

We are. And the only way out of this era seems to go right through WWIII. I guess, after 2-3 billion people die over a short period, the survivors will understand what globalization really meant for them. Will, probably, be enough for another 70 years of peace. Assuming, of course, there are any surivors.

The negative downsides of globalization could've been prevented. The benefits of globalization have gone overwhelmingly to the uber wealthy of the world (along with the middle classes emerging in developing countries) at the expense of the poor and working class in Western Europe and the United States. Europe is especially hurt by the Euro and austerity measures.

While there are problems with the euro design - that, by itself, is a purely local European project, not much very global about it. In everything else you are simply wrong - as wrong as you can possibly be, if you try to be wrong. Rank-and-file Europeans and Americans have been the major beneficiaries of globalisation: and, of course, they will be the major losers in what is to come. I mean, of course, friends of America and Europe in the third world, like myself, will also be among the losers: we have bet on the wrong horse, and now will have to explain why we have been consorting with the enemy. So, yeah, I am frucked - but so are you.

Could you elaborate a bit on that? What he saying is the consensus view (new middle class in the developing world lifted out of poverty + growing inequality in the Western world, with the rich getting richer and the traditional working class getting marginalized). So just saying it is wrong leaves a big fat question mark.

It is, definitely, not a consensus view among economists - rather, a radical small minority view, most people believe to be nuts. I see no evidence of a dramatic increase in inequality in the Western world as a whole.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Genuinely curious.