101 replies to this topic

[Selena]

Holy ballsack, a new contro post!

 

 

 

 

 

This election cycle is peculiar. Voters are flocking to "outsider" candidates in greater numbers than ever before. Establishment candidates are doing far worse than expected across the entire political spectrum. Following the surprise success of Drumpf and Sanders, all the candidates seem to be trying to out-outsider each other. Even the ones who are clearly party establishment (Bush, Clinton). 

 

People have criticized both parties before, but anti-party sentiment now seems to be at a new high. Many liberals seem convinced that the DNC is discreetly trying to sabotage Bernie's campaign to ensure Hillary's success, and conservatives have had a borderline hostile relationship with their party leadership since the end of Dubya's presidency. Differences between each party's sub-factions have been growing more profound.

 

Of the two parties, Republicans are facing the bigger crisis -- and it may reach a breaking point if Drumpf or Cruz wins the nomination. Various establishment officials have said their nomination could be the beginning of the end. Of course, those are the two most likely to win at this point. 

 

 

 

Though it feels like we've been ruled by the same parties forever, the United States has been governed by other parties in the past -- all of which gradually dissolved and/or restructured over time. Depending on who you ask, we're either on our fifth or sixth party system. You know, like how LA has had different "sets" of dorms.

 

See here for a primer on extinct US parties and their evolution into the current ones.

 

 

 

So, are we facing the imminent collapse/split of at least one of America's political parties?

[Fëanen]

I have a suspicion that if Drumpf doesn't get the nomination he'll throw a fit and run as an independent. I don't think his ego would allow him to admit defeat (I've said this for a while, but his reaction to Iowa really confirms it). I might be biased by being a Bernie Sanders Democrat, but I feel like the Republicans have a lot more dissent right now and are a lot more likely to screw themselves over because of the gulf between the establishment and populist types.

 

Of course, if we didn't have this archaic first past the post voting system we could have more than two parties and less voters who feel their vote is wasted, but that's a totally different kettle of fish.

[Sir Turtlelot]

People have been complaining about the corruption of the political system and parties for years, but it seems only now that viable outsider candidates are actually showing up. Sure there have been plenty of independents who have made similar claims over the years, but they've never had any real shot of winning. A Bernie vs. Drumpf general election actually seems quite likely.

 

Of the two parties, the Republicans seems far more likely to break out into a party civil war. For years, radical conservatives have been trying to gain party dominance over the more moderate, establishment Republicans, and the likes of Drumpf and Cruz make that seem even more a reality. I've read some rumors that the GOP may even stage a coup if Drumpf were to win the primaries, in order to secure a nominee more in line with their own views. If this were to occur, I could very easily see him going third party, effectively splitting the Republican party among two candidates.

 

As for the Democrats, I've also noticed the recent rumblings from the Bernie supports about the DNC trying to tip the scales in Hillary's favor, and with the recent refusal to recount the Iowa polls, it's getting harder to ignore.

[JRPomazon]

The DNC has consistently been trying to tank Sander's campaign, from refusing his staff access to voter information to the recent results in Iowa. Statements from previous candidates running for the Democratic nomination have basically said in so many words that the debates have been a mere formality for Hillary's "coronation." The Clinton's have not wasted their time during the various roles in government to make friends in all sorts of high places and it's become apparent just how many folks are giving extra help to Hillary's campaign. However, that isn't to say there aren't any fears on my end focusing around Sanders. His ideas of government are very appealing to people who are fed up with the way this country works. But he is the biggest gamble out of any candidate running because if elected, things could drastically go in any direction.

 

As for the Republicans.... shit, where do I begin? If it's not the blatant racism coming out of Drumpf's mouth, it the war-mongering coming from Cruz, to Bush and Christie. Hell, wanting to bomb the hell out of the middle east is just another check mark to these guys! With Rand Paul out of the running and John Kasich not too far off, it's only a matter of time before we have an entire political party focused on starting another war we can't win and God knows what else with the country. And considering the disillusionment of Barack Obama's presidency, the majority of voters might think a Republican is the right person for the job.

[Selena]

it definitely feels like the DNC is irritated about having to "put up" with Sanders running as a Democrat. It was his only real option for a presidential run, since independents never make it far, but I'm sure Dem leadership is bitter about it. He's not an actual member of the party. It's like some guy barged into their apartment and started eating all their food -- all while criticizing them. Same with the Republicans and Drumpf. 

 

If one of them is elected, and if popular enough to run for a second term, I wonder if Sanders or Drumpf would feel confident enough to launch their re-election bid as independent candidates. They obviously aren't wanted by the main parties. If being an "outsider" suddenly becomes popular enough to win you the presidency, will it open the door for more independent candidates and new parties? One the first successful person gets out of the closet, many more feel comfortable enough to follow. ...You know.

 

 

I am also fully expecting Drumpf to run as an independent if he doesn't win the Republican nomination. Especially if he loses by just a hair. He gives no shits about the party, so he won't care if he destroys their chances of being elected. And because it's regarded as political suicide/sabotage, he'll get the thing he cares about most -- ratings and attention. Hey, even if he doesn't win, he'll have a hell of a book deal.

 

I expect him to win the nomination as a Republican, though. 

 

Less sure if establishment Republicans would spontaneously form a third group to run their own candidate against Drumpf, however. Same with the DNC if Bernie wins. If any big break happens within the parties, I think it'll be after the election. The establishment may dislike the rogue agents, but they hate the idea of the other side winning even more.

[JRPomazon]

Less sure if establishment Republicans would spontaneously form a third group to run their own candidate against Drumpf, however. Same with the DNC if Bernie wins. If any big break happens within the parties, I think it'll be after the election. The establishment may dislike the rogue agents, but they hate the idea of the other side winning even more.

 

I imagine that happening for all the folks Drumpf has suckered in with all his hate speech. They'd call it the Drumpf party and it's mascot would be some strong and proud, like a hippo or a wild boar.

Edited by JRPomazon, 05 February 2016 - 12:08 AM.

[canas is back]

Honestly I am kinda hoping that both parties end up getting that split up, and have sanders and Drumpf run on their own. It would cause short term chaos probably, but would allow us to take a better look at the voting system in general and it's flaws and shortcomings (both the obvious ones and the not so obvious ones)

[Masamune]

Honestly I am kinda hoping that both parties end up getting that split up, and have sanders and Drumpf run on their own. It would cause short term chaos probably, but would allow us to take a better look at the voting system in general and it's flaws and shortcomings (both the obvious ones and the not so obvious ones)

 

The problem with this is that as much as the chaos would be cathartic for disgruntled voters on both sides of the aisle, it would actually mean that when none of the candidates get enough of the electorate  (270) for a win, then the House of Reps get to pick the candidate out of the top three candidates - which would inevitably be a Republican win. 

 

The only upshot is that it may force the country to examine the political system and amend it, but politicians generally aren't in favor of giving up power.

[Egann]

There is one thing which really bugs me about this election cycle; why are there nine republican candidates and only two democrats? That's a difference of a factor of four. If I remember the last few cycles correctly, the democrat party tends to put up fewer candidates, yes, but at this point the party fields were within a factor of two of each other, not OVER a factor of four apart. 

 

There are a few explanations I can think of, but the smaller candidate pool than usual probably reflects a discouraged democrat donor base. Which, sadly, makes a lot of sense after Obama the Incompetent.

 

That said, the Republican party having in-fighting is nothing new. Can you say "Tea Party?" The conservative Christian base and the libertarian right have never gotten along that well and probably never will. It's a fight which doesn't make a lot of sense to me; does it really matter if you have an anti-abortion rally if none of your candidates will implement it on the national scale? No, not really. The only thing it does is mobilize appeal to fear "litmus test" votes on the left which are just as unfounded in reality. I really don't see this dynamic changing any time soon, either.

 

Sanders wants to make the United States a lot like the Scandanavian states. On paper I'm fine with this, as they have a functional balance of welfare and economic freedom. The problem is that the Scandanavian states work because they offer high degrees of economic freedom and freedom to do your own thing is it's own incentive to work. I imagine this nuance is lost on Sanders--he hasn't worked in the private sector since the 70's. Even if he does understand, I doubt a democrat president will be able to implement economic freedom in a meaningful way.

 

And then there's Drumpf. He's very likely to get stuff done...but do I really want to vote for a snake who skips debates to get people talking about his absence? The more I think about this race, the more depressed I get.

Edited by Egann, 05 February 2016 - 06:15 PM.

[Selena]

 

There is one thing which really bugs me about this election cycle; why are there nine republican candidates and only two democrats? That's a difference of a factor of four. If I remember the last few cycles correctly, the democrat party tends to put up fewer candidates, yes, but at this point the party fields were within a factor of two of each other, not OVER a factor of four apart. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it has less to do with the donor base, and more to do with the deeper ideological issues facing each party. There a ton of Republican candidates because of how divided the voter base is. At any given time during an election, Republicans have to court the neocon / libertarian / tea party / religious-right voters / right-leaning independents -- none of whom seem to get along well with the others. There are candidates who take advantage of this split. At the same time, candidates who go for "general appeal" don't seem to stir up any passion with anybody. Which is probably why the Republicans have lost the last couple presidential elections. And why the center-right candidates in this election aren't doing well (starting to feel a little sorry for Jeb, really). 

 

 

Democrats, on the other hand, largely agree on all the big issues. That's why they tend to just nominate their biggest-name candidates. As a result, the Democrats probably have a more entrenched "establishment." Obama winning over Hillary was the first sign that voters are getting tired of party-rule, but because the party has such a clear command structure, there aren't a lot of people willing to break ranks. Especially since Democrats are at a disadvantage in Congress -- sitting senators and representatives are less likely to run this time around. Bernie don't give a shit, because he's not really a Democrat anyway. The rest folded early, as expected.

[Egann]

 

 

There is one thing which really bugs me about this election cycle; why are there nine republican candidates and only two democrats? That's a difference of a factor of four. If I remember the last few cycles correctly, the democrat party tends to put up fewer candidates, yes, but at this point the party fields were within a factor of two of each other, not OVER a factor of four apart. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it has less to do with the donor base, and more to do with the deeper ideological issues facing each party. There a ton of Republican candidates because of how divided the voter base is. At any given time during an election, Republicans have to court the neocon / libertarian / tea party / religious-right voters / right-leaning independents -- none of whom seem to get along well with the others. There are candidates who take advantage of this split. At the same time, candidates who go for "general appeal" don't seem to stir up any passion with anybody. Which is probably why the Republicans have lost the last couple presidential elections. And why the center-right candidates in this election aren't doing well (starting to feel a little sorry for Jeb, really). 

 

 

Democrats, on the other hand, largely agree on all the big issues. That's why they tend to just nominate their biggest-name candidates. As a result, the Democrats probably have a more entrenched "establishment." Obama winning over Hillary was the first sign that voters are getting tired of party-rule, but because the party has such a clear command structure, there aren't a lot of people willing to break ranks. Especially since Democrats are at a disadvantage in Congress -- sitting senators and representatives are less likely to run this time around. Bernie don't give a shit, because he's not really a Democrat anyway. The rest folded early, as expected.

 

 

Yes and no. You can adjust for internal disagreement and other long-term variables by looking at the historical averages. Looking at the previous Iowa caucus results, there is a difference, but it's not huge. On years without an incumbent (who usually runs unopposed or has token opposition) democrats average something more than 4 candidates in the Iowa caucuses, and republicans average a bit fewer than 6. Different, but not hugely so. Whatever is decreasing the democrat count below 4 or increasing republican above 6 is unique to this election.

 

Does this mean that this is bad for Democrats? Not necessarily, but there are two other things I want to point out on that Wikipedia page I linked to.

 

If you ignore races with incumbents, EVERY candidate who won the presidency had at least four other candidates running against them in Iowa. True of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama.  It's not like this measure is a guarantee of success--both parties had 5 or more candidates in 2008, and of course only one could win, and while technically 2000 was a democrat loss, it's only technically so.

 

It's also worth noting that democrats in particular show big variations with candidate count. 2000 had only two candidates (atypical, considering neither were an incumbent) and now 2016 has three only by technicality, again on a year with no incumbents. There's no such pattern with the republicans; they consistently have 5, 6, or 7 in years with no incumbent. 

 

What does any of this mean? I have no clue. It's my best guess that it has something to do with deflecting donation dollars into the general on an off-year, but that's just a guess.

Edited by Egann, 11 February 2016 - 05:40 PM.

[JRPomazon]

News coming in from NH, Sanders and Drumpf take the day, Hilary and Kasich taking second place. More interested now to see what will happen in SC.

[Oberon Storm]

Not sure about the Republican side, but I imagine Clinton will win SC.

[Selena]

Clinton will likely sweep most of the south, though Sanders may do surprisingly well on the coasts and some of the central states. He seems to be gaining ground with each elections, though it's still hard to tell if he'll get enough momentum to pull through. It may largely depend on how many superdelegates switch to him. A lot of states look like it'll be a photo finish.

 

More hot air from Drumpf about how he may run as an independent if he loses the nomination, claiming the RNC is not "holding up to their end of the bargain," thus weaseling his way out of the pact he agreed to. Don't know if he actually will, though it looks more likely now. Hopefully most of the obvious not-winners will drop out after Super Tuesday so that things can become a little more focused. 

 

 

 

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm thoroughly enjoying Colbert's "Hungry For Power Games" every time someone drops out.

[wisp]

This election season is kind of wreaking havoc on my anxiety. I'm not to the point I was before I started taking meds, but I've never been more scared about "current events" before.

[Selena]

Yeah, it's a really nasty election year -- for people on both sides of the political spectrum. I'm intrigued but frightened to see how it will all play out in the end, and continue to wonder whether or not we'll see a big schism in our party structures. I want to believe that Drumpf can't win. But even if he doesn't, I'm already embarrassed by the public behavior he has "encouraged."

[Delphi]

Honestly with all the gun violence we've been having lately I'm quite shocked there hasn't been some kind of assassination attempt on anyone yet.

Maybe I'm alarmist and exaggerating but it's not like my fellow citizens, especially being in the Utah/Nevada border area near those Bundy idiots, have endeared themselves to my trust when it comes to not solving problems with guns.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have the beginnings of a "Drumpf as President" contingency plan. It's, like, 12% of a plan but I'm getting there.

[wisp]

I'm trapped here no matter what because there's an equity loan on my house. My grandfather took it out a few years ago and this legally has to be my primary residence until I get it paid off. And it will be a few years. I'm to the point where, even on BuSpar, I'm having the beginnings of anxiety attacks all the time. If he gets elected I 100% will become a crazy paranoid person, I'm sure of it. He pushes all of my irrational fear buttons. I'm really and truly afraid he will find some way to abuse the presidency and start putting people in labor camps. I read earlier that he's already promised to revise libel laws and make it easier to sue people for saying negative things, and thereby curb free speech. I recognize that our government has checks and balances in place to prevent a lot of that stuff, but since when does Drumpf care about any of that? I feel like he'd find a way somehow. He reminds me too much of the rise of Hitler. 

 

I have to say, the possibility of just abandoning everything I have and disappearing is fairly attractive compared to staying here through a Drumpf presidency. And it's "yuge" for me to say that because I crave stability more than anything else. Wonder if we should go get passports just in case we need to escape to Canada. Mine is way expired.

[Delphi]

Eh I don't plan on running. My plan consists more of being a pain in the ass and rallying support to get him out of office.

The unfortunate reason I feel reasonably safe doing this is because I'm not a non-white male. It would hurt his bullshit racism if someone like me got hurt.

[Egann]

Oh, please. Don't make my parents' opinions about Obama look reasonable.

 

 

On other notes, I love how corporate people are always dicks. Today we had the district manager come in and tell the store manager we should really have all the prep done the day it comes in on the truck, and if it's not done next time he comes, he's going to dock the GM's bonus.

 

Uh, that's like 20 man-hours of work you want done in four hours. During dinner shift. Twice a week. This is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever heard out of anyone's mouth. Did you get hired as middle management with no food-service experience?

[Twinrova]

Dude are you for real right now? People have very legitimate reasons to fear a Drumpf presidency, and fuck you for trying to downplay those fears by comparing them to people being dramatic about opposing views.

Edited by Twinrova, 02 March 2016 - 08:52 PM.

[Egann]

Pardon me for being one jaded sunuvabitch, but I have literally spent the last 8 years with people screaming in my ears that the sky is falling because Darth Marxist is in the White House. The sky didn't fall.

 

I wonder if this is what it feels like living in Israel and Palestine. When your neighbor on the right finally stops shitting the bed, the one on the left starts.

[Twinrova]

How the fuck are Obama and Drumpf even sort of comparable? People can hate Obama for his politics all they want but he's at least not taking endorsements from the fucking KKK and advocating we murder terrorists' family members.

[Selena]

I wonder if this is what it feels like living in Israel and Palestine.

 

Yeah, Egann, I'm sure that you feeling like you're the only rational human in America is exactly like living in Gaza. What with the stabbings and the rockets and the bulldozing of homes. It must be awful.

 

 

 

Obama did a lot of things I disagreed with, but Drumpf is a loud-and-proud nationalist who encourages public xenophobia and quasi-legal-at-best policies regarding "undesirables." And is completely okay with the fact that they're quasi-legal-at-best. Certain minority groups could very possibly be put in actual harm's way. If not by his policies, then by the culture he's bringing out of the woodwork.

 

Of course, there's also the fact that a reality TV nutbag like Drumpf even making it so far in the race is reflective of the fact that America is now officially a train wreck, and that would be true regardless of which side of the political spectrum the ridiculous reality TV star falls on. And with so many people willing to vote for a ridiculous reality TV star nutbag, it's a sign that the problem is deep-seated within the voter base and thus the rot goes all the way down the roots. 

 

 

 

 

I'd be lying if I said I hadn't looked into moving. But in fairness, I've been interested in the idea long before Cheeto-face came around.

 

 

 

edit: I don't know which admin set the forum to auto-correct "T rump" to "Drumpf," but I approve and thank you.

[JRPomazon]

 

edit: I don't know which admin set the forum to auto-correct "T rump" to "Drumpf," but I approve and thank you.

 

 

Five bucks says it was Toan. Anyway, it's good to see that despite the fact that we may be electing Hitler with a toupee that Egann and Rova will always find a way to argue.

 

Regardless of me picking a fight with multiple members of the forum, I'm still trying to make sense of all the players in this damn race. Cruz and Rubio both feel like carbon copies of the same Republican candidate, all God-fearing and Liberal hating with that clean cut look that screams "conservative putz," Hillary Clinton has been known to say whatever people want to hear to the point where I think she's a chronic liar who only wants the prestige of being the first female president. I'm not sure she actually means anything she says at all, considering Benghazi and her little email scandal it's all the more apparent that she's too corrupt to elect (though I doubt that'll stop the DNC from trying). And of course, we have Bernie Sanders who is possibly even more dangerous than Drumpf and Clinton. Sure, we all want to jump on the Sanders bandwagon and "feel the Bern" but every time he gives a speech at a debate or a rally its always the same stump speech we've all heard already (Tax the 1%, take down wall street, etc.). To go in simply thinking he'll save the country and get things fixed is no different than the people who believe that Drumpf will offer the same salvation, it's only a different side of the spectrum. I truly believe he means what he says but what he proposes could be want this country desperately needs or perhaps the opposite. Considering that the EU has a lot going on that he's intending to do here and that the EU is constantly circling the drain financially, there is enough to be concerned about when it comes to seeing his socialist ideas being implemented in a country of this size. So in the end, we have a two groups of monsters. One that offers the promise of nostalgia using God and religion as a platform while the other uses the promise of a progressive tomorrow while exploiting the needs of the people to make their argument. wisp, you're not alone when it comes to sweating bullets over this election. It's a mess and we'll have to see where it all goes but outside of voting for the candidate you believe is the best choice for this country I don't know what else can be done. But this is all for Contro.

 

 

Also, I love how I can't write properly because of all the depressing junk in my head.

Edited by JRPomazon, 03 March 2016 - 02:40 AM.

[Selena]

In fairness to Europe, the financial stability of the EU really depends on which part of it you're looking at. Some of the nations have balanced budgets and are pretty stable -- but that's also because they also haven't fully tangled their own economy into the greater EU economy. The European financial issue is infinitely more complex than which economic models individual nations favor. The Nordic countries probably favor democratic socialism the most, and they have traditionally run budget surpluses on at least a semi-frequent basis. 

 

Of course, I do heavily warn Berners that the Nordic countries also have their economies set up in a way that's ultimately different from Bernie's various plans. They have a bunch of interdependent policies that create stability. They don't, for example, have a legal minimum wage. Their "minimum wage," which does sit around $20/hr, is actually negotiated by a huge network of labor unions. About half the population is a member of a labor union, and they go on to negotiate deals for the entire population -- not just their own members. Simply mandating a minimum wage without labor negotiations could genuinely result in a ton of layoffs around the country, because there's nothing to stop companies from doing so.

 

Which is frankly what happened after Obamacare was passed (at least where I worked). Once that passed, my old company immediately axe'd almost every healthcare plan they had and forced everyone to buy more expensive plans via the marketplace. Because they were within their legal right to do so, and large companies will almost always try to cut costs to acquire more profit.

 

They also export a ton of resources, which gives their overall economy an edge concerning their budget. In contrast, the American economy imports far more than it exports, which is a different scenario. It's also why Drumpf can't guarantee anyone that trade will suddenly improve under his watch. America gets shafted on trade deals because we barely export anything anyone wants (few people want our agricultural products because they're considered subpar quality), and we import all our shit from east Asia because that's where we outsourced all our labor jobs. Not because we don't "negotiate properly."

 

I also speak from personal experience when I say that your average Swede, if handed a giant pile of money, will not know what to do with it. "Oh, I should probably put this in the bank," is going to be their likely response. And then they will keep it there. Nords genuinely don't seek out a shit-ton of wealth. Which is why their high-tax, robust-welfare state works fairly well. Americans are... different. I honestly don't know if a Nordic economic model can successfully be applied to American society.

 

I support the idea, of course, and I hate all the alternatives, but I don't know if it'll work in the long run. 

 

 

 

 

 

Otherwise, yeah. Cruz looks like a holier-than-thou evil goblin, Rubio is Jeb Bush's establishment understudy who has suddenly been put on the main stage, Kasich sounds halfway sensible but is getting no traction (likely because he sounds sensible), and then there's Cheeto-face. A lot of young Dems don't like Hillary for all the reasons you listed, which is made even worse by how transparently corrupt the DNC is. 

 

If there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's that we all hate our party leadership.

[Fëanen]

The reality is that with the current Congress, which is unlikely to change, Bernie couldn't get done a quarter of what he wants anyway. But he will stick to his guns, whereas I'm sure Clinton will roll over if the wind shifts.

 

You make some interesting points. I've long thought that America needs a new labor movement. The unions never recovered from the Reagan era, though frankly I'd be extremely happy for the old private sector unions to replaced with new ones that are more influenced by the workers. The last thing the working class needs are a bunch of Jimmy Hoffas negotiating on their behalf.

[JRPomazon]

One thing I agree with some of the Republican candidates is the idea of bring factory jobs back stateside. We give China a ton of manufacturing jobs from shitty McDonald's toys to anything that has Donald Drumpf's name on it and on top of the crushing debt the US already owes them, we're also giving up a means to actually pay some of the principal back (if that's even possible at this point). And I'm sure I don't have to go into how miserable worker conditions are in places like China and how little those workers actually make.

 

So with bringing jobs back to the US and actually having unions that do more than just exist as bloated and miserable versions of their former glory, we might be onto something.

[Selena]

Both parties have long talked about "bringing jobs back" but so far nobody's actually tried to do it. People advocate forcing companies to pay higher taxes if they outsource or things like that. But they all have big legal teams that can find loopholes to exploit for profit. The only way I actually see jobs coming back here is if we make it outright illegal for an American company to hire foreigners overseas. But I doubt anyone will. 

 

With our entire economy supported by outsourced jobs -- which, let's face it, is effectively our replacement for cheap slave labor -- people are going to say that getting rid of outsourcing will totally destroy our economy. Specifically, that it will increase the price of goods to the point where we can barely afford anything, which in turn kills the whole market because we're a service-and-retail based economy. 

 

Which is why no progress has been made with any president, because top advisers keep conditioning leaders to encourage "free global trade." Keeps the cost of retail goods low, keeps retail sales high. We probably would see some economic discord if we got rid of outsourcing, but I'd rather restructure the economy to not be so utterly dependent on buying dirt cheap shit we don't need than continue as-is. 

[Jasi]

We probably would see some economic discord if we got rid of outsourcing, but I'd rather restructure the economy to not be so utterly dependent on buying dirt cheap shit we don't need than continue as-is. 

 

Totally agree. Example: We do not all need humongous wardrobes full of clothes for every occasion. If everyone bought a small number of well-made, ethically produced goods, we'd all get along just fine. It's all marketing that that's not the way it's done. As it currently is, no one has the energy to try to seek out "ethical" clothing and such. Places are so opaque about how stuff gets made that there's little point in trying.