
Trust in Government Is Collapsing Around the World - randomname2
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/trust-institutions-trump-brexit/489554/?utm_source=feed&amp;single_page=true
======
retrogradeorbit
In my opinion this is the inevitable political crisis that unrestrained
neoliberalism has lead us to. [
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnes...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnessing-
death-neoliberalism-imf-economists) ]

I'd say this is the end of the ideology but I'm too much of a realist and I
expect the powers that be to now double down on it and then try and profit
from it all going up in flames.

(But please don't assume I am some kind of socialist/anti-capitalist.
Capitalism operates quite well in a fair and open market with a strong rule of
law. But Neoliberalism is not this. Neoliberalism is destroying public
institutions and utilities through financial plunder and then selling the
organisation whole-sale and off market at bargain basement prices to the
corrupt politician's corrupt mate in the private sector who then goes and cuts
services, jacks prices, and gouges the captive public with their new found
monopoly, then back channels the money through the lobbyists to the political
party that enabled it, and calls it progress... and then the people cheer that
the institution is 'profitable' again)

[Edit: sorry. this rant is a little off topic...]

~~~
Throwaway23412
This coincides with a podcast interview I listened to with a renowned CPA. He
said that the existing tax code in the U.S. is set almost entirely to
incentivize growth, entrepreneurship, and investment. So, the tax code is full
of all kinds of breaks for employers, job creators, investors, owners of
assets, etc. The tax rate on most long-term capital gains is significantly
less than income tax. Salaried individuals be damned. When Warren Buffett
claims, as he has in the past, that he pays a lower tax rate than most of his
employees, he's not exaggerating.

This tax strategy aggressively pursued during the Reagan administration,
supported during the Clinton administration, and maintained during the Bush
and Obama administrations relies on the assumption that growth among the
asset-holders translates into more jobs and better pay for everyone ("trickle-
down economics"). This assumption seems asinine now because of course the
wealthy are going to save whatever profit they make. That's how the wealthy
get wealthy in the first place! The Great Recession has only exposed this
more. Employers realized "Actually, I didn't need those positions anyway."
Other employers realized "There's enough demand for jobs here, so I don't
actually have to increase salary that much." Property values may have
collapsed during the Great Recession but a lot of long-term property owners
realized "People still need a roof over their heads. Demand for rent is at an
all-time high. I have no incentive to lower rent."

Consequently, wealth inequality grows. Wages stagnate. Homeownership
stagnates. Rent rises with inflation. The percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds
living at home with their parents is the highest it's been in nearly a
century. The young and educated see the situation, realize that they have no
power over an establishment bending to the whims of the upper-class and
corporations, and grow more and more apathetic. The old and uneducated are fed
populist nonsense and anti-immigration scapegoating, thinking that driving out
the brown people will get them the jobs and pay that employers have no
interest in giving them. Trust is an emotion. A belief. What makes you less
likely to trust others? Insecurity. And why wouldn't people be insecure in
this economic environment?

(I realize that this is a very U.S.-centric comment and I apologize to any
other nationalities for whom this does not describe the political
environment.)

~~~
aianus
Rich people have _lower_ savings rates than the middle class.

You think billionaires just buy treasuries or CDs and wait for their wealth to
evaporate through inflation? That money is invested, including into the VC
funds that make the SV startup lifestyle possible.

~~~
barrkel
Investments are savings; just riskier.

(Did you think that your savings account at the bank is just held as
treasuries? The bank invests it.)

~~~
soVeryTired
>Did you think that your savings account at the bank is just held as
treasuries? The bank invests it.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that:

[http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf)

------
jacquesm
If with 'around the world' they intend to mean 'The USA and the UK' then I'm
all in agreement.

But the rest of the world is not that much different from 12 months ago.

The article _sugggests strongly_ that these other countries had a completely
different view of their governments in the recent past but I see very little
evidence of that.

But in the UK (see: brexit) and in the USA (see: Trump) there definitely is a
populist shift in progress.

The French, the Italians, the Russians and even the Dutch have had a
substantial trust issue with their governments as long as I've been alive, I
don't know enough about the local politics of a lot of the other countries
listed there but I suspect that given the fact that none of the ones that I am
familiar with would warrant the label 'collapse' that it is not as alarmist as
the title would have you believe.

What is happening is that there is a slow but steady push towards more
nationalist representation in the various parliaments and this is a source for
concern.

And this is all not to say that a Trump presidency and an exit of the UK from
the EU can't/won't do plenty of damage, but with some luck they will cause
some real political reform in those two countries.

It's either that or a very good chance of serious economic upheaval.

~~~
laichzeit0
> there definitely is a populist shift in progress

Is it that difficult to believe that a large part of the population is not
interested in multiculturalism, unrestrained immigration, Islam, etc? I think
until this concept cannot be fathomed and taken seriously you will see a
continued shift towards so called "populist" thinking. There _must_ be a shift
towards a more moderate politics. It is too far to the left and it's too
liberal for the vast majority of people in those countries. You can argue
against this ad nauseum, however at the the end of the day it's a democracy
and the majority will steer the direction they want their politics to go. The
current liberal parties need to wake up and realise they're pushing a form of
politics that is out of touch with the masses. And every time people say Trump
supports are "stupid" and "racist" and "backwards" you are just going to make
them push even harder, because you refuse to acknowledge their very real
grievances.

~~~
pjc50
_" multiculturalism, unrestrained immigration, Islam"_

What do those three things actually _mean_ though? And what would it mean to
end them?

Immigration is only unrestrained within the EU; EU free movement doesn't apply
to either refugees from Syria or non-EU immigrants.

What does it mean to end multiculturalism? Formal ban on the teaching of
minority languages, as in the bad old days when the UK tried to stamp out
Gaelic and Welsh?

What does it mean to end Islam? An end to freedom of religion? Making muslims
wear large yellow crescents so they can be easily identified? Remember the
Bataclan attackers weren't immigrants, they were French or Belgian nationals.

~~~
laichzeit0
> Islam

Muslims killing people because it is Haram to draw cartoon pictures of their
imaginary sky god. Muslims sexually harassing woman in Cologne on New Years.
Muslims "call to prayer" blaring over load speakers in non-Islamic countries
but in their own Muslim created "suburbs". Muslims wanting public swimming
pools gender-segregated.

If the only way to break the ebb of this tide is through conservative/right-
leaning/populist politics then this is exactly what will happen, if the
majority so wills it.

The actual point is that these are real or perceived to be real grievances
that the current political elite are _refusing to entertain as legitimate
concerns_. They're not even asking for a "definition". They are flat-out
dismissing it as bigotry, racism, "a small minority of disgruntled people",
etc. So people have turned to e.g. Trump, who openly talks about this and
offers plain and simple plans that address these issues: Build a big wall,
deport millions of illegals, etc. You can disagree, but it's a simple solution
that people understand.

~~~
wvenable
Aren't all those things already illegal? It is really hard to find people on
either side of the political spectrum that wouldn't agree that those things
should remain illegal and be enforced.

So most people don't have a problem with that, but they do have a problem with
labeling an entire culture, race, or religion is immortal/illegal. That's
literally the definition of racism and we should be better than that. Yet it
seems like some people are in a real hurry to turn back the clock on that.

~~~
bordercases
These illegal events come downstream of the policy of what tends to be liberal
government: multicultural immigration done hastily, and without the necessary
frameworks in place to support it. Regardless of whether these were ill-
considered side-effects or whether the consequences came on purpose, they're
that government's mistake and their responsibility.

If you're talking to your friends, and none of you are directly involved in
political office, then I don't think you're getting the opinion from the
people who matter. I would beware apologists, though.

I think it is the throughput or volume of importing that is most foolish about
this effort, not even the intention. In Canada, there exists at least one
public school that has to educate 19-22 year old Syrians who don't speak a
lick of English in the midst of 15-16 year olds: same classes, same resources.
It turns out that these uneducated adults are giving the administration a
tough time and I fear for the sexual safety of those children.

------
edraferi
The book _It 's Even Worse Than It Looks_ is a great resource for
understanding this phenomenon in the United States. The authors are longtime
congressional staffers who are horrified at the institution's decline.

They argue that the US Congress really isn't working well, degrading the
performance of the entire US government, and the primary cause of this
dysfunction is a deliberate campaign by the Republican party, starting with
Newt Gingrich in the mid 1990s.

I remember learning about the Contract With America is school, but I had no
idea it was so insidious. The GOP intentionally broke congress to get people
angry about crappy government, under the theory that they, as the party of
small government, they would make relative gains.

This has now baked for 20 years, and has been pretty effective. This is why
you see Republicans stonewalling things they should logically support, like
nominees they explicitly praise as qualified, Obamacare's extensive market
mechanics, etc. It's also why Congress can't pass laws even when thr majority
of the population supports them, and real crises like the Debt Ceiling
debacle.

Institutions are critically important. We have to fix this before we can fix
anything else.

------
mrmffh
I'd argue this is a positive trend. Hopefully it leads to more innovation in
governance.

~~~
mtreis86
I agree. I find groups of people scary. Not in the anxiety manner. I mean that
I don't know of a single instance of a person doing massive damage to anyone
or any thing, when compared to damage by groups or by people with group
backing. All the worst atrocities of the past few centuries were carried out
by groups of people. The US constitution is supposed to protect individuals
from groups, but that seems to have been (mostly) subverted in the name of
preserving our institutions (banking).

~~~
marklgr
But humans mostly want to be part of some group, and that's the problem with
the current trend of ultra-individualism: people will be much easier to
influence by dangerous groups that fill their need for belonging. If there
were a stronger sense of community in the first place, instead of the strong
emphasis on the autonomous, self-sufficient and competing individual, one
could wonder if radical religious or ultranationist groups would be as
significant.

~~~
mtreis86
I agree with the hierarchy generally followed by emergency management systems
- protect yourself first and your family, then your neighborhood, then if they
are all safe help the wider community.

------
yAnonymous
I don't think there was ever much trust in (western) governments. People only
put up with the politicians' crap, because they were well off. Bread and
circuses is now over in many places, at least compared to the recent past, and
people are facing the reality of the political fuckups of he last few decades.

~~~
sievebrain
But the graph in the article shows otherwise.

------
dschiptsov
Why should people trust any government in the first place?

Governments nowadays came to replace institutions of organized religions as
the way to gain a high social status and security, and hence became as
bloated, inefficient and corrupted as old, unreformed churches of the past.

No sane people would 'trust' such social formations which sole purpose is self
preservation and parasitic growth.

~~~
lostlogin
I think you need to look at "Churches of the past" a little harder. Churches
had their time and while we haven't managed to get rid of them yet, we are a
lot better of with a separation between them and the state.

~~~
CM30
What about outside the US, where there is no seperation of Church and State?

~~~
lostlogin
The church and state are better separated in many places outside the US. I'm
in New Zealand.

------
keithpeter
_> > Edelman said that people tend to trust businesses more than governments,
in part because “business gets stuff done” while government is seen as
“incapable.” People trust technology companies in particular because “they
deliver value.” <<_

UK Brexit vote: most (not all) business leaders were advising a remain vote.
Apart from the 'immigration' trigger, the 'take back control' trigger does
come up in my conversations with those who voted leave.

The Labour party spokesbeing on the radio this morning was developing a
vaguely anti-globalist line about spreading the fruits of recovery more evenly
and defending social spending. We shall see.

~~~
jacquesm
The latest plan seems to be to cut corporate taxes to try to stop the larger
companies from leaving the UK, and possibly to attract new ones.

The race to the bottom started with Ireland, suggestions are to cut the tax to
15% in the rest of the UK, with some voices pushing for 10% or even _5%_
corporate tax. Of course this has nothing to do with using the opportunity
created by the brexit power vacuum to reward some special interests.

~~~
mrmffh
Race to the bottom (i.e. competition) is a good thing, it reduces waste and
inefficiency.

~~~
jacquesm
In lala-economic-theory-land yes. But this is not companies competing for the
favors of customers. This is nation states competing for the favors of
companies and that is a totally different matter.

In the real world you need taxes to operate a country and with big business
being able to relocate their capital and their profits at a moments notice
corporations have a substantial advantage over nation states (which are by
definition somewhat immobile).

So the 'inefficiency' that you seek to eliminate is the oil required to keep
the machine running. Note that a company couldn't care less if your country
roads fall into disrepair, healthcare sucks and education starts to fall
behind. It won't show up in the quarterly reports for a long time and by the
time it does they can easily move on to another place.

Having a very low corporate tax is only possible if your country does not
require major infrastructure and that's one of the reasons why most tax havens
are either nearly un-inhabitable (Cyprus, Panama) or extremely small (Monaco,
Lichtenstein, Vaduz, Luxemburg).

Ireland is the exception and it only succeeded there for reasons that the UK
will find hard to emulate.

~~~
DominikR
> In lala-economic-theory-land yes. But this is not companies competing for
> the favors of customers. This is nation states competing for the favors of
> companies and that is a totally different matter.

Why is it bad when businesses find that conditions for them constantly get
better everywhere? Is there something inherently evil or bad about businesses?
This is usually a position hardcore Socalists would take.

> In the real world you need taxes to operate a country and with big business
> being able to relocate their capital and their profits at a moments notice
> corporations have a substantial advantage over nation states (which are by
> definition somewhat immobile).

No corporation can move its operations and profits within a moments notice.
This takes usually years and the absolute majority of businesses do not even
have the option to ever do this.

The problem of most Western societies is that the top 10% basically pay for
75%+ of everything, the middle class pays an acceptable amount and then theres
30% of free loaders with 29,9% being the ones at the bottom and 0,1% on the
top.

~~~
Joof
The top 10% also have more than 75% of the money, so this makes a lot of
sense. They have more than 75% of the money, so I imagine it's a good bit
higher than you imagine.

How do the freeloaders pay taxes like the rich if they can't afford life
circumstances that allow them to get educations similar to the rich?

Healthy countries need taxes to boost their populace up to an optimal level of
health and education. Maximize the people that could potentially become high-
value.

------
sbmassey
Honestly I think we are just finally seeing the effect of the fall of mass
media - there is no real replacement for the traditional establishment
newspapers with enough gravitas to give anyone confidence in our institutions
- even the media currently considered quality is mostly whining, hysteria and
buzzfeed adverts.

------
arca_vorago
Ok, First of all, I feel like "around the world" is stretching it a bit much
for the purposes of the article. Secondly, I don't think you can explain the
core reasons for this without talking about a specific country, because
despite the similarities of even, say, the US and the U.K., the underlying
causalities are much different. Thirdly, it is ominous when the author talks
about the media consuming educated group, because the main thing being ignored
in that front is the fact that operation mockingbird never went away and (the
US at least) has turned propaganda into an invasive art. People are dangerous
when they are easily propagandized, but especially moreso when they don't even
realize it. Of course that's why in politics the 50-80 year olds are the
primary target. Because they vote and they consume the bullshit off $TVStation
with little incredulity. This is also why the Internet is under increasing
threat from the supranational oligarchy, because the anarchistic freedom of
thought it encourages is dangerous to them.

I could tell you about where this trend is going, but that would involve
conspiracy theory and nasty confrontation of facts that most people don't want
to do to be honest. As for why "the people" are trusting "the government"
less, I think while much of it is the natural reaction to a government with
corruption run amok, I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some of the
increased distrust for government is a deliberate play by the supranational
oligarchy vying to undermine the only thing that truly has any reigns around
its neck, and that's government.

The other main factor is the lack of the rule of law. I think the lack of it
has always been there, with varying degrees by subject of course, but now
people find out about the true extent of the corruption and lack of rule of
law via the Internet and I think it's breeding revolutionary attitudes.

When everyone sees stuff like bankers do obviously illegal, immoral, and
amoral stuff, then get paid for it, and then get no legal repercussions, the
rest of us are slowly gonna start saying "fuck it", and abandoning faith in
institutions.

~~~
marknutter
Who bailed out the bankers? Oh, that's right – the institution you describe as
the "only thing that truly has any reigns around its neck". I'm not surprised
your prediction involves a conspiracy theory.

~~~
arca_vorago
See, you actually bring up a good point, which is that the common discourse
tends to divide into anti government/pro business, pro government/anti
business, when in reality part of the problem is the lines between business
and gov are so blurred how can you tell? I get the feeling you are on the bad
gov/pro bus side, but I don't want to put words into your mouth.

So yes, the gov did bail out the bankers, but mostly because of regulatory
capture and essentially hostage holding from the banks (holding our economy
with a gun to its head saying give me the money or I'll shoot!), so this is
where I usually hear about how it's the people's fault for electing the
government.

So how we can keep going up the chain? In the end the responsibility for the
welfare of the people is the government, so though we have allowed our
citizenry to be propagandized and our votes manipulated until they almost
don't count, the real prescription lays in _effective_ and properly
representative constitutional government. That's what America was founded on,
and while it was never perfect it is what we should strive for.

I have seen first hand what reduction of government just because people are
_afraid_ of it does in many places. West Texas for example, ends up with
privatizing water, electricity, and numerous other things, and then all the
people are wondering why their service is bad, hugely overpriced, and rife
with corruption, and worst of all complete lack of accountability.

Be very very wary of the knee jerk reaction to bad government being to get rid
of government vs improving the existing one.

That being said, I have always been a fan of G Edward Griffon's saying, "If in
doubt, choose less government". So please don't confuse me with a new dealer
or anything that extreme. I see your point, I just think there is more room
for nuance in the discussion.

~~~
marknutter
I'd say I'm a business-bad/government-worse person but I'll choose lots of bad
businesses who can't tax people over one massive and corrupt government who
can tax people.

------
neximo64
I think the assessments given by many people are a bit silly. You can't be a
bigot or a facist in voting for Brexit. It's absolutely ridiculous people
overlook the basic issues at play such as Ireland having to charge for water
or basically allowing an entire group to set up laws and have very little say
in the process (Its an EU wide law and there's basically no say about it).

I think years from now once the enchantment of free movement is over people
will realise the beast (Thte EU) that it is.

------
ZeroGravitas
I've seen that Brexit tweet about the Yougov poll on distrust before.

The context it misses, is that this poll was taken in the middle of the
campaign, when people already knew that these groups disagreed with them.
There's no consistent way to say "I trust economists/Obama in regard to
Brexit, but I also know that economists/Obama think that Brexit is a bad idea,
and I think Brexit is a good idea." The easiest thing to give way in that
narrow situation is trust but does that generalize?

I have my own opinions about what's driving Trump and Brexit, but I'm wary of
people forcing their preconceived notions onto this issue.

For example, Nate Silver's 538 pointed out early on that Trump supporters are
relatively rich. In the Brexit campaign, working-class Labour supporters who
may be in the process of switching to UKIP are focussed on, yet the vast
majority of Conservative voters, generally thought of as the party of the rich
and selfish, and that has ruled the UK for most of the last 3 decades voted
Brexit, and yet no-one wants to talk about that for some reason.

------
tim333
Most people don't know what's going on in government and judge things by how
life is around them. Unfortunately that's been bad in many places due mostly
to deflation of a type not much seem since the 1930s IMHO. This then gets
blamed on the politicians, immigrants and the like as most people couldn't
even tell you what "insufficient aggregate demand" means.

~~~
marknutter
Y'know, it also gets blamed on the rich and corporations which is just as
populist.

------
digi_owl
Sorry, i need to brain dump something.

A: the free travel of workers within EU was basically there since the early
coal and steel agreement.

B: said workers still needed to present passports etc when crossing borders.

C: the Schengen agreement removes the passport requirement (UK is not a
signatory to it though).

D: EU expands eastwards, leading to an influx of workers that can underbid
locals.

E: refugee crisis ends up being the straw that breaks the camels back.

~~~
peterclary
Regarding "D: EU expands eastwards", my understanding is that this was largely
driven by the then British Conservative Government as a ploy to prevent
further integration between EU countries. "Wider, not deeper" was the theory.

So the free movement of Eastern Europeans into the UK was due in large part to
the Tories.

~~~
sievebrain
It was done under New Labour, and it was Blair/Brown who chose not to activate
transitional controls. So not the Conservatives.

However I'm sure they'd have done the same thing if they had been in power at
the time. Resentment about EU immigration followed the entry of eastern
European states into the EU (with the UK being one of the only countries to
allow their populations in from the start).

------
paradite
I understand the point that the author is trying to make, but "around the
world" seems to be an overstatement. More like around the America and Europe.

In countries like Russia or China, trust of government is the very basis of
governance. The country would collapse rather fast if a sizeable portion of
people stop trusting the government.

------
2suave
Seeing how the general populous deemed George Bush a "trustworthy" president
I'm really starting to worry about the judgement of the common man.

------
anoplus
To get trust you need transparency. And by transparency I don't access to
information but to information in the form of knowledge. We to to upgrade
government to the digital age to do so.

------
known
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegida)

------
JumpCrisscross
> _A “person like me” is now viewed as twice as credible as a government
> leader_

I wonder what this statistic looks like over time in China and India.

------
speeder
I read all comments on HN so far here. No mention to the huge shift in South
America.

Also I am from Brazil.

First, what I mean by huge shift:

During cold war, us backed, violently (for example by threatening to bomb rio
de janeiro with and aircraft carrier if the then elected president resisted
the coup, and later with cia "disappearing" dissidents, and actually bombing
other countries) a couple of brutal dictatorships.

When cold war ended and people wanted change, left wing parties, some that
were guerrilla during the cold war and also had lots of blood on their hands
(and they fought for communist victory, not for freedom as people like to
believe) decided to use the opportunity to take power themselves and join the
establishment.

The left created an organization named foro de São Paulo, and steadily won
elections (not necessarily fairly...) and managed to take over almost every
single country in South America.

Then, they implemented policies that remember us democratic party policies,
not truly left or communist, but a big state, with socialist and neoliberal
policies, lots of crony capitalism, with money flowing freely between big
corporations and politicians.

Now they are all falling, but we are not sure who will take their place,
Argentina had Maurício Macri victory, Brazil is seeing a rising popularity of
Jair Bolsonaro (kinda like a brazilian Trump, except he explicitly defended
the cold war dictatorship, militarism and torture), other countries are also
unstable or trying to open without losing power (Cuba for example... that is
one of the foro de São Paulo founding members)

I wrote all this to say that those dismissing the headline because it is only
about us and uk are wrong.

\-------------

Now about the subject.

I am someone that grew up with a leftward education, but shifted to a
reactionary/regressive right wing view in my adulthood. I will write some
points as for why, and I am sure a couple of them will fit for most
Trump/brexit/Bolsonaro/golden dawn/that rising Japanese nationalist party
voters.

Where I started: my dream as a kid was have a completely normal life, wife,
kids, "salaryman" job. My political position was that "capitalists" (what now
I know are cronism) were hurting people, and that everyone having equal rights
and opportunity is great.

1\. Women didn't get the right to work, they already had that right, during
industrial revolution they were the main workforce...

2\. Women instead lost the right to be mothers, they were obliged to work,
obliged to compete with men, wanting to be mother, have low status but easier
job, or not wanting to earn like men and work like men became a bad thing,
enemy of "the cause".

3\. Workforce suddenly doubled. And when corporations noticed.

4\. In a world with rising automation, sudden workforce doubling is bad idea.

5\. Look at the average income of the average person (not family) in us since
feminism rise in the 60s. You will see wages are declining.

6\. Look for white men in their 35s wage and full employment in us, compare it
to counties that had major votes toward Trump.

7\. Divorce laws became very strong, including allowing divorce for no reason
at all. Most divorces, in the entire world, are initiated by women, here in
Brazil women initiate 73% of divorces, most of them with no justification.

8\. Look into divorce statistics, amount of divorces.

9\. Why a sane man now would marry? you go, marry, and get no rights, only
obligations and the risk of a divorce fucking up your life.

10\. Divorce is a major cause os suicide among men. Look into us statistics
for death rate of white men middle aged over time. Again compare with Trump
voter map.

11\. Women now don't need men, they are more educated, more employed, die much
less on workplace, die less by suicide, die less by violence. sadly women also
love to point all that to their boyfriends too.

12\. So, you want a career, the fad now is science, computers and engineering,
you plan in working until you are "stable" enough to take care of potential
kids in a potential divorce. why do you need me then? and who want kids of a
"old" woman where the pregnancy is riskier and kids have more "birth defects"?

13\. Still women want to fuck, drink, play and get wasted much as men.
Awesome, no need to get married to get sex anymore!

14\. Women is now pregnant of a random stranger. She said it is "her body",
also, pension laws are very unfair... let "her body" then abort or not and
care for the kid.

15\. Look for how many fatherless kids there are in western world.

16\. Look for what percentage of people in prison are fatherless (from both
single, and divorced mothers with full custody).

17\. So, I am stupid, decided to get educated even if it is pointless because
the generation that then were adults told me to do so. Now I have thousands of
debt, never got a salaried legal job, don't have a house, pay rent through the
nose, don't have a car either.

18\. Oh, ecenomy crisis hit! House prices fall but are still unaffordable and
I still have too much debt and no credit. rent is still rising despite housing
price falling. My landlord owns the entire building and more half of the other
buildings in the block and in a couple more city blocks. he kicks me out
anyway when my startuo fails.

19\. Adult, near my 30s, in debt, still never found my first salaried job.
Didn't found yet a girl that wants to be mom or that doesn't mind a bearded
dude that live with his mom.

20\. Decide to explain how life is going bad, people tell me I have white
privilege becauset I am half-white. Being partially white is seemly enough to
"owe my soul" to black people, according to a USP student.

21\. Being partially white also means my house is fair game for blacks to
invade and steal 8 times.

22\. Can't complain, I am "privileged".

23\. Complain anyway, now I am privileged due to being male/straight/young

24\. Decide to discuss politics, get kicked out/banned/driven off before I
voice my opinion just because I have white looking skin (nevermind the black
person nose on the middle of my face) or for being male.

25\. Get embraced by /pol/, trumpists, bolsonarists, men rights, etc...

26\. Organizations there full of bigoted batshit crazy racists and gymnophones
(people that fear women, usually guys that were mocked for being raped,
scammed or had their lives destroyed by women). But they are the only ones
willing to discuss my problems.

27\. All I wanted was job, wife, kids and normal life. There are no jobs,
women don't want to marry and when they do they divorce, and take your kids
with them. And doesn't matter where I go, people hate me because I am white
straight male. Except when I go near neo Nazi/pol/trumpists/bolsonarists, they
like me, even if I am half black. They are actually tolerant...

------
danieltillett
This just the masses realising that they have been decapitated. In all western
countries the intelligent are identified at a young age and brought into the
ruling class via education. There is no one left to speak for the interests of
the bottom 90% nor formulate a plan to change the status quo. Faced with this
it is not surprising that the masses get restless and thrash out at any symbol
of authority no matter the consequences to themselves.

~~~
pilsetnieks
So you're saying that the masses are dumb, and the ruling elites are smart?

~~~
narrator
It's not so much that the masses are dumb, but that propaganda techniques have
been so refined and optimized that people have no idea who or what they have
to fight to get what they want.

There are a lot of ideological systems that are created simply to misdirect
the public's attention away from actual important issues and toward infighting
or intellectual dead ends or towards the goals of the propagandists.

Let me give you one example: the murder rate in the US is the lowest its been
since 1963. The way the media directs the public's attention and magnifies the
coverage of the violence that does happen makes the public think that there's
a huge terrorism, crime and gun violence crisis.

Anyone who wants to actually figure out what is going on just needs to look at
the numerical data, but that's boring. Instead political life is a bunch of
people reposting whatever article got published today to freak the public out
or very narrowly guide them into strengthening their belief in a particular
ideological narrative.

People aren't stupid, but given limited information they are easily
influenced.

~~~
jolux
>Let me give you one example: the murder rate in the US is the lowest its been
since 1963. The way the media directs the publics attention and magnifies the
coverage of the violence that does happen makes the public think that there's
a huge terrorism, crime and gun violence crisis.

Yep, this is true. However mass shootings over the same period of time have
been going up. Compared to the rest of the industrialized western world, we do
have a gun violence crisis. Considering
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-
related_death_rate), the US is sitting between Uruguay and Montenegro with a
rate of 10.54 per 100,000. Whether or not it's been falling since 1963 (and I
know it has been) it's still at an appalling place and we deserve better. Not
to privilege the West over everywhere else but we are closer to most other so-
called "Western countries" culturally speaking than countries that are not
traditionally part of the West. Within that framework, Finland has the next-
highest rate, and it's at 3.25 per 100,000 (i.e. about three times less).

------
sievebrain
"Lefties" isn't really an insult any more than "neoliberals" is. It's just a
description of a political position.

What you're doing here though, is classical left-ism: taking an innocuous
statement and claiming it's terribly offensive in order to distract from
his/her point.

~~~
dang
"Lefties" is name calling. If one didn't mean it that way one would at a
minimum say "leftists" or "the left"—assuming a native English speaker, which
may not have been the case above.

Your comment turned this into an ideological swipe in its own right. Please
don't do that here. If we're to have civil, substantive discourse across
political differences, people need to respect each others' views. That may be
too much to hope for, but we can at least eschew derision.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12030641](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12030641)
and marked it off-topic.

------
known
Before elections, Govt is promoting

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud)

And after elections, Govt is colluding with

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chindia](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chindia)

