Economic Populism 101: What Dems can learn from Ripoffreport.com

[Voltaire99]

Ripoffreport.com (with which I am not in any way affiliated) is the Jerry Springer Show of publicly-swapped consumer horror stories. Here the cheated, enraged, despairing, sore and somewhat unhinged gather to gripe inarticulately and inchoately. Because griping is their last resort.

Take this page, for instance: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff21474.htm

What's quickly apparent is the extent to which the posters on Ripoffreport.com are desperate: money is tight, growing tighter, and yet they've been scammed and no one will help. Most of the stories concern sweaty consumer swindles. But in the above case (from 2002), we see howling over a macro scam: the burgeoning profit-taking of the parasitical insurance industry, its jaws tightening on those with poor credit ratings.

How bloody hard is it to explain to those thronging the Ripoffreport.coms of the world that their woes are due to deregulation, the unhindered rise of corporate power, the arrogation of nearly all wealth to a few, and the installation of heartless venal rich men as their leaders? That, in fact, compared to the sofa that was never delivered or the jinxed insurance policy, all rip-offs pale beside Bushism?

Democrats will lose elections -- and should do -- as long as the party neglects the economic facts on the ground. Neither the declining middle class nor the battered working class, and least of all the savaged underclass, can take practical comfort or hope from millionaires and even billionaires lecturing them on the need to outsource jobs or waste more money on a bloated, uncontrollable military.

They might listen, however, if reached with a populist message. As some here well know, this will require disentangling what remains of the party's roots from the weeds of corporatism and militarism, clearing arable land for passionate rededication to the needs of ordinary as opposed to incorporated Americans. And most painfully of all, it will require reaching out to those who now despise the party -- the very rednecks whom Howard Dean was castigated for addressing -- with a message that will be derided as "class war," "socialism," and worse. I have no illusions about this happening soon. But happen it must.

Meanwhile, those ripped off swell in number. Without leaders, representation, or hope. One can gripe about it -- but that's about all.

[Radical Activist]

1. Bingo!

Its a shame there are so many leaders in the party who don't understand the electoral appeal of economic populism, especially among voters in the South and Midwest. We avoid it at our own peril.

[leftstreet]

2. Excellent post

:thumbsup:

Thanks for spreading the message. The more the Dems avoid the reality of populism, the more despised they'll become.

[SlipperySlope]

3. Use of credit reports to determine insurance rates is standard.

The use of credit reports to determine insurance rates is a standard practice. It has proven to be an effective predictor of claim risk.

It may not be "nice", but it is business as usual.

[Angry Girl]

4. Just like credit reports are being used to determine new hires

Makes me wanna holler and throw up both my hands....

[Radical Activist]

6. So?

The fact that its standard practice is all the more reason to condemn it and do something about it.

[SlipperySlope]

7. So...

What information should insurance companies use then?

They are in the business of measuring and assessing risk of a claim.

In most states they are already prohibited from using information like race, gender, religion, marital status, age, or occupation.

Some people want to prohibit them from basing rates on your neighborhood (because that could discriminate against certain races).

They need some measure of assessing your risk of filing a claim, why shouldn't they use the credit report if it is strongly correlated to future claims?

[Radical Activist]

9. Because its discrimination based on class and race

Once again something is more expensive simply because a person is poor. Systemic discrimination can be hidden in all sorts of different policies and procedures that aren't overtly or even intentionally racist. The answer is to eliminate the insurance industry which needlessly leaches health care dollars that should be going to doctors and patients.

[SlipperySlope]

11. This thread is about HOMEOWNERS insurance

Hi RA,

I hope you see this response.

Maybe we were talking sideways to each other. The original posting is about homeowner's insurance, not health insurance. My perspective changes on risk assignement for one versus the other.

[Radical Activist]

12. oops

But honestly, I feel the same way about it. There are an endless number of ways in which companies make it more expensive to be poor. The rich get too many breaks, despite needing breaks less than anyone else. Our economy is structured in a very ugly, discriminatory way.

[SlipperySlope]

13. point taken - n/t

[Voltaire99]

16. You have a point

They need some measure of assessing your risk of filing a claim, why shouldn't they use the credit report if it is strongly correlated to future claims?

You're right: there's no denying the efficacy of credit ratings as a metric.

My complaints are (1) it's a regressive fee; (2) homeowner's insurance isn't usually an elective expense; (3) this usage represents a perversion of the reason for credit ratings; (4) it produces morally repugnant results.

In short, we know that the working poor live under perpetual debt. Poor credit is the rust on that leg iron. Must the condition of debt slavery be worsened by the purchase of legally required insurance?

Under a just system, one's credit rating would serve as no more than originally intended: a predictor for repaying debt. Using it as a kind of pH strip to test for irritants to insurance company profits is cruelly exploitative.

Issues of this sort, and not more palaver of the "John Kerry said, "SEND ME!'" sort are what the party needs to regain a purpose--and a following.

[Warpy]

5. I've said this for YEARS

I predicted Gore would lose if he didn't address the fact that 90% of us saw absolutely no benefit from the Clinton "boom" save a modest increase in wages his last 2 years in office, bolstered by the most timid minimum wage increase in history. I predicted he'd lose if he didn't address the fact that even the insured were losing coverage via copays and rate hikes sucked directly out of their paychecks, and the fool allowed the DLC to rip the national health insurance plank out of his platform.

Well, he surprised me by winning a narrow victory, but it wasn't wide enough to prevent the theft of the office from him.

I predicted Kerry would lose unless he dumped his DLC handlers and dropped their economic platform, one that appealed very nicely to the yuppie minority but did absolutely nothing for the hardworking majority. He, too, likely won a narrow victory but had it snatched away by fraud.

If we want to hand the GOP's collective ass back to it, we are going to have to do a whole lot better than squabbling over the yuppie vote and proposing timid economic reform that will do nothing for working people who have been hammered by economic stupidity from both parties for the past 37 years.

Continuing on with the conservative platform, conservative lobbyists turned campaign handlers, and a stranglehold on populist rhetoric by characters like Lieberman prusing their lips and sneering at anyone who takes a chance on it will only continue on with the economic policies that are killing our country, our economy, and ourselves.

We can't go on like this. It's time for a change, a big one.

[bread_and_roses]

8. What Warpy said (n/t)

[mrgorth]

10. Our folks

Have been tricked by Rove into thinking that populism will be turned into "class warfare".

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. right on!!

[PassingFair]

15. Thank you for your thoughtful eloquent observations!

I am offended by the apparent strategy of the Dccc and The Dlc vis a vis the running of recent veterans in races in the blue states.
I have NOTHING against veterans. I have grave misgivings about exploiting veterans as politicians, especially those with no political experience, and ESPECIALLY when the Dccc propels an unknown candidate against a experienced, viable candidate, as they are doing in Illinois.

They are doing it in race after race after race.

I nearly threw-up when John Kerry opened his convention speech by saluting and saying "I'm John Kerry, reporting for duty".

How much good did it do when Murtha exposed the Iraq lies? None.

I agree with you 100%. We need Populist candidates, like, NOW, like LAST YEAR!!!

This is what happens when we try to "out-military" the GOP:

[Voltaire99]

17. I feel the same way about militarization.

Thank you.

As you say, the party has tried vainly to "out-military" the GOP. What a fool's quest that has been! Its long term impact has been our steady impoverishment and more recently the silly sideline jingoism of liberal warriors has littered the path to Iraq.

By the way, I have nothing against vets, either--my own family has a few. Some of the writers I admire--Howard Zinn, Kurt Vonnegut, Norman Mailer--are vets. They are vets, importantly, who stand for peace.

Unfortunately, it's clear the party's strategy for the midterm elections is to parade Iraq war vets as proofs of Democratic Party muscularity. (To which audience are they most trying to furnish these proofs, we should ask. Voters, or the military establishment?) It's sad, to say the least. And doomed, I expect.

[xchrom]

18. kick