[pdkl95]

Mark Blyth has been trying to explain this situation ever since his warning about economic policy leading to a rise of populism, "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea"[1]. For a very good overview of the problem - and some suggestions on how to fix it - see this[2] recent talk.

Briefly, the political situation can be fixed quickly if-and-only-if the actual needs of the working classes are actually addressed. That means e.g. some type of single payer healthcare and paying off the student loan burden.

[1] http://markblyth.com/books/austerity-the-history-of-a-danger...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsqGITb0W4A

[tptacek]

The rise of populism is tied to student debt, a phenomenon that overwhelmingly impacts the upper middle class?

[existencebox]

While I'm not familiar with Blythe, I'd address your comment:

I certainly don't think it _helps_. Take the Keynes quote from the paper, that given an uncertain financial future people wanted "A Change", and a population that took out substantial debt and didn't leverage this effectively may be looking at a very uncertain financial future of their own.

There's also a certain similarity I can see in the psychological impact of inflation, high taxes, and high debt loads without high earning potential, in that they by their nature are difficult to overcome (and in some cases impossible to), and here I'd cite the many prior HN discussions on "the cost of being poor" to throw more wood on that fire.

Finally, they observed in the paper that much of the nazi voting came from those who had the most to loose from austerity, so the fact that student debt is tied to upper middle class doesn't seem to necessarily contradict that possibility either, even if it's within the self-selecting group of those who imposed that debt on themselves in the first place.

[pdkl95]

It's limiting who can even enter college. Blyth specifically recommends "Free College Tuition". I (perhaps unwisely) mentioned the milder goal only addressing current student debt with the goal of avoiding being dismissed as "marxism".

I strongly recommend listening to Blyth's actual explanation (in this or his other talks & publications), not my poor-quality summary.

[tptacek]

The idea that the solution to the core problem of toxic populism just happens to be the policy prescriptions of the Bernie Sanders campaign (I say this as a Democrat!) seems like a bit of a just-so story.

[wfo]

Well sure, it seems dubious if you frame it chronologically like that but that's not necessarily how it happened. "The idea that the solution to the core problem of X just happens to be the prescriptions of Y" is exactly the case whenever Y is purposefully and intentionally constructed to solve the problem X.

Who's to say social democratic policies (i.e. Sanders, FDR) don't usually arise in response to the toxic populism that austerity creates because they (anti-austerity) are the natural cure? Isn't that the story behind the new deal?

Is it so hard to believe that creating an entire generation of people who will have negative net worth until they are 40 fosters resentment?

[tptacek]

That's a tautological argument. No good-faith participant in public policy debates aims to push whole generations into debt; they simply disagree about the best way to avoid that outcome.

I don't doubt that people who believe in single payer and subsidized tuition do so because they think it's the best way to keep generations out of debt. It would be weird for them to think otherwise.

What I'm doubting is that they can evoke public policy outcomes from the 1930s as a natural experiment proving that those are the best policy interventions. I think that argument assumes a whole variety of facts not really in evidence.

[wfo]

>No good-faith participant in public policy debates aims to push whole generations into debt

I agree, but I don't agree that even a majority of participants in public policy debates are acting in good faith. I think it's possible, but given the results and empirical evidence we have to the contrary you should provide some evidence or argument to back up this extremely controversial claim.

I don't think they actively wish to push generations into debt like mustache-twirling cartoon villains, but I do think they are not particularly concerned with this side effect of their other policy goals which are essentially a massive transfer of wealth and power to the private sector, like, e.g. privatization of the loan industry and education.

>I think that argument assumes a whole variety of facts not really in evidence.

The original argument was made by Blyth, who is a serious academic, not me, and you haven't made any attempt to engage with him at all. The crux of the argument is that "anti-austerity is the cure to the ills of austerity" which is honestly nearly tautological because of its obvious correctness, not because of a flaw in its reasoning. It's natural to look back at similar historical situations, like a gilded age of massive inequality and the destruction of working class power preceding a depression. The only real difference between then and now is that we've chosen to call our depression a recession, and pretended there was a recovery from it instead of creating one.

[didibus]

> No good-faith participant in public policy debates aims to push whole generations into debt; they simply disagree about the best way to avoid that outcome.

I feel there is more disagreement about the outcome itself.

Maybe no one could wish upon others financial debt, but a lot of people question why they'd need to help others achieve financial stability.

The idea that we need to actively find ways to raise the minimum standards of living and create a financial baseline seem to me like leaning on socialist ideas.

The other side can claim that there are winners and there are losers, and that's exactly how things should be. Reward the winners, and motivate the losers to work harder, simply make sure they are allowed to compete.

[maxerickson]

It would cost a lot less to just have companies take a little more risk when hiring.

(There's nothing wrong with making higher education cost less for people that want to do it, but plenty of people are just seeking a credential they see as necessary for access to certain jobs, jobs which often don't need much of the higher education they purport to require)

[crdoconnor]

The upper middle class can often avoid the worst of the debt thanks to money from mommy and daddy.

Of the ~35% of Americans who get college degrees and the debt that goes with it, the ones who end up in the most debt will overwhelmingly be those whose parents didn't save up a college fund for them - i.e. kids who came from working and lower middle classes.

[philippnagel]

Following this explanation this doesn't explain the political developments in Germany. Or perhaps it does, as the rise of right-wing politicians and extremists is still rather limited. Worrisome nevertheless.

[pdkl95]

I should mention that Blyth specifically discusses the recent German election in the above talk. He agrees that yes, the rise of extremists is still limited, but also points out the huge drop in support for traditional parties, which is also worrisome.

[mtgx]

Why is it so hard for some to understand that eventually people get tired of the "same old same old", especially when they start thinking that things are getting worse in their day to day lives?

Of course people will be looking for some change. And if none of the established parties comes out with that real change, or no other "rational" party comes out promising that change, then that leaves the extremists/authoritarians, so they'll go for those.

Sometimes I'm amazed at just how blind some people can be at this, and think that people should (or will) always vote for the lesser evil (in the downward spiral). No, eventually people will get fed up with that, whether you like it or not. So it's important to have a real, but also rational, alternative to the slow-moving political establishment.

It would be best if the main political parties would pre-empt this by actually addressing people's latest concerns and being in tune with what those concerns are, but often they get too comfortable with the power and the relationships they have at the top, so it almost comes natural to them not to do that.

[jnordwick]

So putting it all together:

We need single payer healthcare to avoid another Nazi party and Holocaust.

This is the logic of what you're saying, right? Will single payer be enough or is it just the start of the policy requirements to avoid another Nazi party?

Edit: people are voting me down but his last paragraph almost says this straight out. It is such a wild idea that without socialist policies were headed for nazis again is crazy.

[dang]

This comment violates the site guideline that asks you to "please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize". Would you please do a better job of following the rules here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ulkram]

I agree except "That means e.g. some type of single payer healthcare and paying off the student loan burden."

Those are not the only ways.

[mikeash]

“E.g.” means “for example,” so the quoted sentence explicitly says those are not the only ways.