I have thoughts

by liberal japonicus

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

it's been a bit since there was a post and the most recent comments, centered around Starmer's volte-face about migrants, seems to suggest that would be a good topic.

As the Lazarus poem suggests, I'm pretty sympathetic to novakant's anger and disgust about the Starmer and what he has been saying. I'd also observe that this seems almost totally driven by gains made by Reform in local elections, and Starmer wants to co-opt. This can be seen as another knock on effect of Brexit and if Starmer really wanted to kneecap Reform, working on reversing Brexit might be a lot better. This isn't to claim that the EU is just letting migrants through to punish the UK for Brexit, if you step out of the room where stuff is being negotiated, don't be surprised if your interests aren't represented.

I also look at Australia and Canada, with both countries affirming an approach that celebrates more diversity and wonder why Starmer doesn't consider trying to act in a similar way. Is it because the Brexit debacle has made trade with the EU toxic, so they have to run to the embrace of the US?

And, while I definitely think that Starmer's turn is pretty horrible, I am left wondering if Japan, which has a fetish with maintaining homogeneity in the face of a lot of liberal criticism, wasn't on to something. For sure, there are a lot of very problematic things with Japan's regime, but the larger framework looks a lot better if it avoids the excesses of an ICE regime or the UK riots of 2024. Lots of stuff to parse here, so I'm hoping to work this out more in the comments.

Comments

[Cheeze Whiz]

The Brits I read on Brexit seem resigned to it being a fixture in Briitish politics for the foreseeable future. Besides media relentlessly framing everything in terms of how it relates to Brexit, the Reform party are seamlessly collecting the nativist vote that the Tories had seemingly locked up. Labour are acting like their consultants are telling them opposing "Brexit", whatever that means at this point, is electoral death. Hence the pandering of nativists/racists on immigration. Labour and the Democratic Party are acting as if appealing to morality and idealism is a mug's game for lovers, destined to fail spectacularly.

[wj]

Labour are acting like their consultants are telling them opposing "Brexit", whatever that means at this point, is electoral death.

It seems more like, at this point, opposing Brexit is pointless. It happened, for good or ill. There's effectively zero chance of it being reversed in the lifetime of any current politician. Because, no matter what British politicians say or do, no matter what the British public says or does, the EU just isn't interested. No surprise there -- you initiate a nasty divorce, don't expect a reconciliation and remarriage after it's finalized.

So, since there's no going back, the options are these. Claim, in the face of all the evidence, that it was a great idea that's worked perfectly. Or focus, without blaming or even mentioning Brexit, on mitigating the damage.

[liberal japonicus]

I think Cheeze Whiz is right, this stinks of consultants' advice. And as for the EU, I think they are smart or at least understand for their own self-interest that expanding the bloc to deal with not only China but also Trump AND Russia would be something they would want. Making this as a failed marriage assumes that the parties are the same, but the electorates are actually different.

[novakant]

No 10 says Starmer 'completely rejects' suggestion he echoed Enoch Powell with 'island of strangers' comment

When you have to dissociate yourself from Enoch Powell, you're in trouble. Starmer should probably fire a few people and develop a political personality.

Sidenote regarding the wording "island of strangers": the UK is not an island, duh. It's 1.25 islands or something. Funny how NI always gets thrown under the bus.

Regarding Brexit, I think it is probably correct that it will not be reversed for a long time, but that's more due to the UK tabloids and rightwingers than the EU or even the UK population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_re-accession_of_the_United_Kingdom_to_the_European_Union

[nous]

Hopefully Pro Bono won't mind me transferring this over here so as not to lose it in the other tread's change of direction:

The question I say we have to answer is: do we want fair treatment for people who happen to have been born in poorer countries? Ultimately, that means giving them the same rights as people born in rich countries. Or do we want to maintain the privileges enjoyed by people born in the UK, or even more in the USA?

This is, in large part, the question that is sitting at the heart of both the immigration freakout and the Global North's climate inaction. We are holding out for some magic bullet that lets us have both of these because we are unwilling to countenance a reduction in our life prospects.

I personally don't think there is any way that we can maintain the privilege that Pro Bono speaks of (and I'm by no means certain that Pro Bono believes we can, either). That privilege is built upon practices that overshoot our ecological ceiling and trying to maintain it will drive both further environmental collapse and wider and deeper human suffering in the Global South.

The US and UK right are fully committed to being the revelers at the start of The Masque of the Red Death, and hoping that the booze holds out long enough to be passed out when the Red Death finally makes its grand entrance.

But until then, anyone who tries to stop the party is going to be ostracized as a traitor to the land in any general election.

[liberal japonicus]

thank nous for the redirect. There's a chance of a pile on with Pro Bono at the bottom, so let's be careful.

What is astonishing to me about the UK situation is that with Wales, Scotland and Ireland, you've got a sort of ur-diversity, so the inability to take that in and understand what it means is pretty depressing.

My take is that we could probably give fairer treatment to the Global South if we didn't accept the massive inequality that drives a lot of the current situation. It won't be to the level of over consumption that you find in the West, but when you have something like this

In the United States, the top 0.1 percent now control about the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90 percent of the entire population. Globally, the richest eight individuals possess as much wealth as half the entire planet.

https://inequality.org/article/why-we-should-abolish-the-super-rich/

it seems there is room to work.

[wj]

In the United States, the top 0.1 percent now control about the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90 percent of the entire population.

And what that says is that you can have 1st World (or whatever the current term of art is) living standards in a country with maybe 10% of the per capita wealth of the Uniter States. Which (ignoring un-ignorable details like climate change) means that getting people generally in the Global South up to 1st World living standards is a lot more feasible than it might seem at first glance.

Naturally, returning the US to a somewhat less extreme level of inequality would shift that picture some. But just getting those people to the level most of us live at today would resolve a whole lot of otherwise intractable problems.

[novakant]

getting people generally in the Global South up to 1st World living standards is a lot more feasible than it might seem at first glance.

Sure, but the sad fact remains that if everyone enjoyed 1st World living standards an environmental catastrophe would be imminent. Just imagine everyone using air conditioning, eating meat, hopping on planes or using cars the way we do...

High-income countries are responsible for 74 percent of excess resource use causing ecological breakdown

I hope there is some sort of combined technological, social and political solution to this.

[novakant]

This site, linked in the article, is very good:

National Responsibility for Ecological Breakdown

[CharlesWT]

Sure, but the sad fact remains that if everyone enjoyed 1st World living standards an environmental catastrophe would be imminent.

They have more immediate concerns than the environment until they reach something approaching 1st World living standards. From their point of view concern for the environment is a luxury concern.

[wj]

the sad fact remains that if everyone enjoyed 1st World living standards an environmental catastrophe would be imminent. Just imagine everyone using air conditioning, eating meat, hopping on planes or using cars the way we do...

Using air conditioning? Sure. But using cars the way we do? Necessary if you live in the US outside an urban area west of the Mississippi. Or in much of Canada or Australia. But you can have 1st World living standards without using cars the way suburban Americans do. Europeans manage it. Heck, even New Yorkers manage it.

And as for hopping planes, not really a necessity for 1st World living standards. Indeed, while many of us here may do so relatively casually, a lot of our fellows do not. Even we, I suspect, can go months without actually doing so. At most, it's a nice-to-have. And increasingly, as communications continue to improve, it's mostly a luxury good.

[CaseyL]

novakant - It's very weird to think that the current US regime, by destroying the consumer economy and in the process of destroying air travel, might actually be doing the world a favor.

Not to mention the pro-disease policies of RFKJr and HHS, doing their best to "Make America Disease-Ridden Again."

H'mmm.

[novakant]

They have more immediate concerns than the environment until they reach something approaching 1st World living standards. From their point of view concern for the environment is a luxury concern.

That's a talking point one hears quite often, but I think heat waves regularly reaching 45 degrees and the flooding of their shorelines are actually very immediate concerns for the people of India, Bangladesh and elsewhere. To be fair, changes in policy have to be economically and socially viable. Doing nothing is not an option, however.

wj, I'm as guilty as the next person, it's just that the numbers are so staggering, so I'm really not sure what to do (1 is "fair share"):

high-income countries: 4
lower-middle: 0.75
low: 0.5

If we go with Kant's 1st cat. imp. def. our whole way of life is morally wrong because you cannot universalise it. Of course I'm the first one to appreciate pragmatic solutions and we can't just close up shop.

[nous]

To expand on novakant's helpful framing...

When we talk about climate refugees, most of the displaced are not leaving their homes because they are looking for a higher standard of living - they are leaving because they cannot survive any longer in their homes. They are rural farmers who cannot grow crops anymore due to desertification or to their crops getting flooded with salt water as sea levels rise. They are local fishers whose stocks are being poached by international companies trying to keep their catches up as the populations of fish plummet, or who have had their fishing fleets bought out by Chinese owners who are exporting the local catch to China instead of selling it domestically.

These people get displaced to crowded cities and either fall prey to local criminals or find themselves doing subsistence work. Their lives and children are threatened, and they have no skills and no local support network to fall back upon.

And the strain they put on local governments acts as a threat multiplier, strengthening the local criminal enterprises and weakening the ability to keep order.

So they take huge risks and try to find work in the Global North. It's not air conditioning they are after, it's bare survival for them and their children.

Most of them gladly would have remained where they were had our ongoing ecological collapse not made that impossible.

It's not actually about modernization or prosperity. It's much more basic than that.

It's a tough set of problems.

Google "Just Transition" to get a better idea of the state of the discussion about this at the governmental/NGO level.

[hairshirthedonist]

Yeah, I think Charles has it completely backwards, unless you take the phrase "luxury concern" to mean that people with the luxuries are causing most of the environmental concern.

I'm not even sure that first-world living standards are what people should strive for if we're talking about doing a lot of driving, buying lots of crappy clothes that are almost disposable, eating too much beef, reading AI-generated dross, etc. Good nutrition, at least basic health care and education, being reasonably safe from crime and such are what's needed for quality of life, as opposed to standard of living, which seems to include some unnecessary consumption.

I'd guess I could be happy without 75% of the things I have/do, maybe happier than I am now, so long as I still had the right 25% of it.

[russell]

Agreed re: Charles' comment. When the weather is gonna kill you, we are no longer talking about "first world problems" in the sense of it being a mere inconvenience.

From what I understand of their lives, the world my parents came up in would barely qualify as modern-day "first world". And yet, they made it through all of that. There is a lot of room for us to scale back what we (modern first-worlders) think we need.

The biggest impediment to this as far as I can tell is all of the infrastructure currently baked into our daily lives that make it difficult to function without all the things that contribute to climate change. Cars of course, but also where and how we grow food and what kinds of food, how we heat our homes or otherwise make them habitable, etc etc etc.

There's a lot to unravel.

[Pro Bono]

Thank you, nous, for keeping my question alive. I think this site works better when different viewpoints are represented. If everyone disagrees with mine, sobeit.

For what it's worth, I think the only just immigration policy would be to allow anyone to work in any country. I also think that's not in the interests of most people living in rich countries, and no political party espousing the policy could get elected.

[liberal japonicus]

For what it's worth, I think the only just immigration policy would be to allow anyone to work in any country. I also think that's not in the interests of most people living in rich countries, and no political party espousing the policy could get elected.

The problem is that it is so easy to demagogue this. 'take back control' was Reform's line, so It is a political calculation, to be sure, but I don't see it as a lack of courage but a realistic view of what would happen.

It's interesting to me, I often see short videos about how Japan is 'living in the future', which is true for some things, but for others, things can be incredibly archaic. It's one of the problems I have to deal with in teaching, making sure that students can take advantage of all the neat things they could do, but they have to develop the mental habits to carry them out.

The other problem I think I see in the US is that every step forward has to be monetized so that someone rent seeker can profit.

[wj]

I will be channelling my inner GftNC. Here is a column from my local paper. (It's paywalled, and I doubt anyone else has a subscription.)

Is there a middle ground on immigration? This Republican thinks so
A former Arizona state senator and prominent conservative businessman wants to create pragmatic pathways to citizenship.

By MARK Z BARABAK
PUBLISHED: May 15, 2025 at 3:00 AM PDT

Bob Worsley has solid conservative credentials.

He’s anti abortion. A fiscal hawk and lifelong member of the Mormon Church. As an Arizona state senator, he won high marks from the National Rifle Association.

These days, however, Worsley is an oddity, an exception, a Republican pushing back against the animating impulses of today’s MAGA-fied Republican Party.

Here’s how he speaks of immigrants — some of whom entered the United States illegally — and those who seek to demonize them.

“We have people that are aristocratically living in another world,” Worsley said. “Maybe they work for you, but you haven’t really lived with them and understand they’re not criminals. They are good people. They’re family people. They’re religious people. They are great Americans…. So I think that’s a problem if you don’t live with them and you’re making policy.”

If that line of reasoning is too mawkish and bleeding-heart for your taste, Worsley makes a more pragmatic argument for a generous, welcoming immigration policy, one unsentimentally rooted in cold dollars and cents.

“The Trump Organization needs workers, hospitality workers, construction workers,” Worsley said. “The horse-breeding industry, the horse-racing industry, they need these people. The pig farmers, the chicken farmers.”

Worsley owns a Phoenix-based modular housing firm and is chairman of the American Business Immigration Coalition, an organization representing more than 1,700 chief executives and business owners nationwide. Their exceedingly ambitious goal: to find compromise and a middle ground on one of the most contentious and insoluble issues of recent decades — and to bring some balance to a Trump policy that is almost wholly punitive in its nature and intent.

Businesses need workers

“We are employers … and we don’t have a workforce. We need a workforce. We need this workforce,” Worsley said. “And building a wall and stopping all immigration is not going to work, because the water will rise until it comes over.”

A serial entrepreneur before he entered politics, Worsley favors throwing the U.S.-Mexico border open to all comers. The “lines between countries” should mean something, he said. But now that America’s borders have been practically sealed shut, fulfilling one of President Trump’s major campaign promises, Worsley suggests it’s past time to address another part of the immigration equation.

“What we need is bigger portals, bigger legal openings to come through the border,” Worsley said, likening it to the way a spillway releases pressure behind a dam. “We need a secure workforce as much as we need a secure border.”

The immigration issue was Worsley’s impetus to enter politics. Or, more specifically, the scapegoating and vilification of immigrants that prefigured Trump and his “poisoning the blood of our country” Sturm und Drang.

Worsley, whose ventures included founding the SkyMall catalog — a pre-Amazon everything store — was coaxed into running to thwart the return of former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, who was recalled by voters in part for his fiercely anti-immigrant lawmaking. (Worsley beat him in the 2012 GOP primary, then won the general election.)

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Worsley did his youth missionary work in Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. “I developed a certain level of comfort and love for the people down there,” Worsley said.

Moreover, the experience colored his perspective on those impoverished souls who traverse borders in search of a better life. A person can’t empathize “unless you’ve actually walked in their shoes, lived in their homes, eaten their food and socialized with them,” Worsley said via Zoom from his home office in Salt Lake City. “And I think that’s a problem.”

He left the Arizona Senate — and electoral politics — in 2019, vexed and frustrated by the rise of Trump and the anti-immigrant wave he rode to his first, improbable election to the White House.

“It was really irritating because I had fought this in Arizona a decade before,” Worsley said. “And so to have this kind of comeback on a national stage was incredibly frustrating.”

He moved part time to Utah, to be closer to his extended family. He wrote a book, “The Horseshoe Virus,” about the immigration issue; the title suggested the convergence of the far left and far right in the country’s long history of anti-immigrant movements.

He became involved with the American Business Immigration Coalition, recruited by Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, whom Worsley knew through politics and a mutual friendship with Arizona’s late senator, John McCain. Worsley became the board’s chairman in January.

He’s still no fan of Trump, though Worsley emphasized, “I am still a Republican and would vote for a Mitt Romney or John McCain kind of Republican.”

From punishing to fixing

That said, now that the border is under much tighter control, Worsley hopes Trump will not just seek to round up and punish those in the country illegally but also focus on a larger fix to the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system — something no president, Democrat or Republican, has accomplished in nearly 40 years.

It was 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed sweeping legislation that offered amnesty to millions of long-term residents, expanded certain visa programs, cracked down on employers who hired illegal workers and promised to harden the border once and for all through stiffer enforcement — a pledge that, obviously, came to naught.

“Once you’ve secured the border and you don’t have caravans of people coming toward us, then you can address [the question of] what’s the pragmatic solution so that this doesn’t happen again?” Worsley asked. “We’re hopeful that’s where we’re going next.”

It’s long overdue.

[GftNC]

I haven't read wj's channelling yet, but I just wanted to say this. I haven't commented on the Starmer/immigration etc subject, although I have made comments which I have deleted before posting. The reason is because although I sympathise with novakant's disgust at Starmer's apparent pivot, and even more so his language, I think he is in the cleftest of cleft sticks. I believe he is a decent non-bigot, facing a terrible dilemma.

Even some of my leftier friends in the last couple of years have been saying that they think essentially ignoring the electorate's (and the population's?) anxiety about immigration has been a terrible mistake, and the demonisation of people with those anxieties (see e.g. Gordon Brown and the "bigoted woman" comment) has led to entrenched and self-defeating resentment (see e.g. Brexit). The rise of Farage and Reform is utterly horrifying, and although I think Starmer's reaction and language have been highly regrettable, I understand his motivation. It's the issue of purity politics all over again, as Pro Bono implied upthread. Do you say what you believe should be the case in an ideal world, and thereby lose any even vaguely realistic chance of being in power to change anything for the better? I am really glad I am not a politician having to thread this particular needle.

[russell]

We're living in a world with extreme differences in wealth and privilege, where communication and travel are remarkably easy in historical terms, and where changes in climate are putting enormous pressure on people in a lot of places.

I agree with pretty much everything Worsley says (in wj's comment), but in particular this:

the water will rise until it comes over.

What is needed is an intelligent response that accounts for the facts on the ground.

[GftNC]

Yes, that Worsley stuff seems pretty reasonable. And, for me at least, it's important to be reminded that someone I strongly disagree with on various issues (e.g. abortion, or the concept that saying "They’re family people. They’re religious people" is any kind of character reference) can still be worth listening to on other issues, with something valuable to contribute to the debate.

wj, on the channelling thing: my thinking is, I like to post interesting stuff that most people here may not have seen or have access to, but would nonetheless be interested in. Your Worsley thing certainly fits the bill as far as I am concerned, and I'm obviously not alone.

[wj]

GftNC, well, I wouldn't channel just anybody!

The concept of tactical alliances seem to have faded from some people's consciousness. The more fools they.

[novakant]

Regarding the future relationship of the UK to the EU, here is a depressing article on the state of the debate in the UK at the moment:

Is Britain really inching back towards the EU?

It's depressing because the right-wing hasn't moved an inch and isn't being held accountable at all for the non-sensical debacle that is Brexit - it costs us a lot of money amongst other things.

It's depressing because Labour, rather than confronting the issues head-on in a rational manner, is running scared of Farage and the tabloids.

It's depressing because, to give an example, apparently the UK has a "youth mobility scheme" with 13 countries already, including Australia, New Zealand and Japan. But when it comes to discussing the idea of arranging one with the EU, which is of course the nearest neighbour, everybody is treading on egg-shells so as not to upset the crazies.

It's depressing because even such a banal thing as an agreement on veterinary checks on the border is viewed as a sell-out of sovereignty. Nobody disputes the sovereignty of France or Germany as a nation, and even if, one could always look to Norway or Switzerland for a pragmatic approach to the EU.

It's depressing because of the both-sideism of the BBC coverage which gives way too much weight to the irrational right-wing while about half of the population now actually favours rejoining the EU, with the Euro being the only sticking point.

/sorry for the rant

[novakant]

and the rhetoric hasn't changed at all since the good old days of the Brexit blowhards:

"surrender summit"
"the great British sellout"
"our freedom to set our own rules"
"take back control of our laws, our borders, our money"
"a patently failing economic model" (= EU)

/rant

[russell]

It is the season for ranting. No worries.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"Ranting season!"
"DOG-EE season!"
"Ranting season!"
"DOG-EE season!"
"Ranting season!"
"Ranting season!"
"DOG-EE season!"
**BANG**

[Michael Cain]

Yes, that Worsley stuff seems pretty reasonable.

To sum up my main disagreement, Worsley says the US has to be a good country -- or at least a few states have to be good states -- for employers. He doesn't seem to say anything about being a good country for employees. Do the employers he's talking about intend to invest in equipment to make their workers more productive? In education so some of those workers can perform the maintenance on the equipment? To eventually be able to get jobs designing such equipment?

I understand that California's fruit and vegetable growers have largely automated transport of picked produce out of the fields, because no one is going to pay California's minimum wage for someone to hump boxes out of the fields. I suspect some workers who were former pickers are now better paid as mechanics. And if not them, some of their kids will go to college and learn to design improved versions of that gear.

Employers who can't provide jobs that are good for the employees will eventually get what they deserve. I'd like to help that process along.

[CharlesWT]

How the Rust Belt states priced and regulated themselves out of manufacturing jobs.

"A big missing part of the story: Interstate competition. The Rust Belt’s manufacturing decline isn’t primarily about jobs going to Mexico. It’s about jobs going to Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. To put it in college football terms, the traditional Big Ten has been losing out to the Southeastern Conference. In 1970, the Rust Belt was responsible for nearly half of all manufacturing exports while the South produced less than a quarter. Today, the roles are reversed, it is the Rust Belt that hosts less than one-fourth of all manufactured exports and the South that exports twice what the Rust Belt does."
Manufacturing is thriving in the South. Here’s why neither party can admit it.: Both parties are afraid to confront the real story behind manufacturing losses.

[nous]

Michael's and CharlesWT's consecutive posts here make for an interesting juxtaposition, since the argument being made in the article CharlesWT cites is doing exactly the same thing that Michael is complaining that Worsley is doing (side note - I find Worsley's name rather fitting).

True facts - all those manufacturing jobs that have moved to the southern states with less labor-friendly state regulations are costing us all money. When you look at the difference in wages between full time manufacturing workers in the four states listed in the article and those in rust belt states, it tells only a part of the story. What's missing is that the average percentage of those workers on federal public assistance in PA, OH, MI sits at 30% or below. For the four states being praised, they are all at 39% or above, with nearly half of all workers in production occupations in GA having to supplement their earnings with federal safety net programs. The amount of difference in the wages equals the amount of difference in how much the federal government pays those workers to make up the shortfall.

In fairness, CA, NY, and TX are also high on that list, but all three generally pay more into the federal budget in tax revenues than they take back in subsidies and safety net programs.

It's corporate welfare for the employers, with the rest of us having to subsidize their workers while those workers are forbidden from organizing in the name of freedom of choice.

(data via the UC Berkeley Labor Center) - https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/topic/low-wage-work/public-cost-of-low-wage-work/

[liberal japonicus]

Nous, interesting point, and one I think of in relation to medical costs. One of the reasons the US can't/won't tackle the problems of health care is that it a way to transfer money to certain interests. I won't track down all the links, but I think the issue is basically the same: find a way for individuals to subsidize what in other countries is handled, much more cheaply and efficiently, by the government.

[russell]

New England, home of the industrial revolution in this country, is full of old mill buildings now turned into commercial office space and condos. It took a while to transition from manufacturing to the industries that are the backbone of the economy here now - tech, health care, some sectors of finance (although banking has kind of always been a presence here). Things were hard for a while.

And we got our start by stealing IP from the British.

So when all the folks in the American south get upset about manufacturing moving offshore, where labor is cheaper, part of my just thinks "that's the way things go". It's the iron law of capitalism at work, at least as we practice it. No use crying about it, if you want to change it, a whole lot of other things will need to change.

You can blame it on the rust belt states "pricing and regulating themselves out of manufacturing". You could also blame the folks who packed up their businesses and went chasing the cheapest labor pool, leaving their former employees sucking wind.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the reason that labor became less cheap in the rust belt was unionization. And the reason that took hold was that manufacturing at that time was a dangerous and often damaging way to make a living. For workers, anyway. Long hours, child labor, a lot of immigrants who had no other options.

[JanieM]

lj: One of the reasons the US can't/won't tackle the problems of health care is that it a way to transfer money to certain interests.

At this point almost everything is a way to transfer money to certain interests. When I was very young and very innocent, I thought that people would have a certain kind of "freedom" as long as "they" couldn't force us to buy things.

Now we have "subscriptions" to software. Housing. For-profit colleges and charter schools. Stories abound (I know someone to whom this happened yesterday) of people trying to cancel "subscriptions" and the money still rolling out of their credit card accounts.

Here's an apt quote from Crooked Timber long ago, when I was still reading and commenting there:

“We (almost all of us) are being slowly and mostly invisibly turned into channels for the funneling of money to an ever smaller number of people. No aspect of life is safe from a process of commercialization that allows someone to skim money off the rest of us. It’s not just technologically dazzling trinkets, it’s clean water, seed stock, etc. etc. See, e.g., for-profit colleges, which Doonesbury has been skewering for the past two weeks.”

That was in 2012.