Ignore this video. It has nothing worth learning.
Obey. Comply. Succumb.
JP is the man! ;D
"This is just a conspiracy theory".
Never mind that the WEF's plans are all out in the open where anyone can look at them, and they have members of the "elite" in every country in their pockets. Go browse their "Young Leaders" for a flavour of who they've suborned.
It would be horrible if someone killed Klaus. I have a feeling he has security that makes the secret service envious. It says a lot though he is confident enough to just broadcast out his intentions and plans openly, I guess knowing around 30 percent of the population or more probably agree with you (because in their minds they feel they are somehow situated toward the top of the new hierarchy) and having another 60 percent that just stays content so long as belly is full and entertainment is consumed. The last 10 percent that will fight, have been programmed with decades of rugged individualist propaganda, so they organize about as well as a herd of cats.
Does Klaus actually have realistic chances of taking over the world, though? It's one thing to openly state your intentions to enslave mankind in flowery wording, but it's quite another to actually bring about said cyberpunk dystopia.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 07, 2022, 12:57:58 PM
Does Klaus actually have realistic chances of taking over the world, though? It's one thing to openly state your intentions to enslave mankind in flowery wording, but it's quite another to actually bring about said cyberpunk dystopia.
I think he can take over the parts that matter to make policy to the rest of the world. Loading wetware into people? Not too sure about the transhumanist elements, but if the people do what you want them to do just from influence and who you put in charge....I think that is a pretty decent second tier win for him.
I think Klaus, if he lives to be 100 might see people willingly loading wetware into themselves, but in his life time I think it is a bridge too far. The movement will carry on without him though, I do think he gets what he wants, just 2040 instead of 2030.
It'll last till someone hacks the wetware.
At which point, it gets entertaining.
Quote from: Spinachcat on March 05, 2022, 04:26:33 PM
Ignore this video. It has nothing worth learning.
Obey. Comply. Succumb.
Is it just me or he does remind you of Doctor cocteau?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 07, 2022, 11:15:54 PM
Is it just me or he does remind you of Doctor cocteau?
He reminds me more of a Bond villain.
And that absurd outfit that makes him look like a cross between an ambassador from Star Trek and a Cthulhu cultist? It's not a photoshop. He apparently got an honorary degree from some weird European college[1], and that's their regalia.
[1]Kaunas University of Technology in Lithuania
Quote from: Pat on March 07, 2022, 11:24:04 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 07, 2022, 11:15:54 PM
Is it just me or he does remind you of Doctor cocteau?
He reminds me more of a Bond villain.
And that absurd outfit that makes him look like a cross between an ambassador from Star Trek and a Cthulhu cultist? It's not a photoshop. He apparently got an honorary degree from some weird European college[1], and that's their regalia.
[1]Kaunas University of Technology in Lithuania
Doctor Cocteau was sort of a Bond Villain IMHO.
Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink are two of the most powerful and most evil people currently alive in the 21st Century Western world.
Quote from: Doc Sammy on March 10, 2022, 06:36:40 AM
Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink are two of the most powerful and most evil people currently alive in the 21st Century Western world.
Hey Doc!
Welcome back.
Yeah, pretty darn obvious that Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics are both: A) Not really about capitalism or accountability to shareholders so much as accountability to what the WEF wants and Klaus Schwab. AND B) A social credit score for companies, which will be paid for by woke supporters and hold companies "accountable" via boycott by the woke masses. Basically all they need to do is to popularize the metrics within the woke base, and companies that service them will either have to yield to them or lose profits. Thus achievements on the metric scores to appease the woke become a stand in for future profits, and the metrics become a currency all their own. Controlled and bestowed directly by the WEF under Schwab of course.
This is what happens under unregulated capitalism, some people win big and start developing god complexes. Usually the people born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 26, 2022, 11:33:41 PM
This is what happens under unregulated capitalism, some people win big and start developing god complexes. Usually the people born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Unregulated capitalism?
Funny how the young future leaders of the WEF are mostly technocrats and politicians. Or how Schwab brags about having his protegees in top
government positions.
It's almost like he thinks the way to influence things is regulation and political action, not the free market.
But yeah, let's blame capitalism! And ponies! They seem to just as related. And evil.
Quote from: Pat on June 26, 2022, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 26, 2022, 11:33:41 PM
This is what happens under unregulated capitalism, some people win big and start developing god complexes. Usually the people born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Unregulated capitalism?
Funny how the young future leaders of the WEF are mostly technocrats and politicians. Or how Schwab brags about having his protegees in top government positions.
It's almost like he thinks the way to influence things is regulation and political action, not the free market.
But yeah, let's blame capitalism! And ponies! They seem to just as related. And evil.
Not sure if you're arguing for unregulated capitalism here, or just correcting misconceptions. Feel free to skip to the next paragraph if the latter rather than the former. Like, on the one hand I do love capitalism, but also I recognize that market failures and monopolies and the like do seem to be real economic factors. (With what admittedly little I remember of some admittedly more left leaning microeconomics stuff I once read a little bit on.) I feel like some degree of targeted taxation, antitrust measures, and the like aimed specifically at letting the market do its thing properly are important, and that the government needs to to some degree guarantee and recognize property rights while preventing outright theft or fraud to some extent for all this stuff to work, and doing things like helping relevant information to purchases be more readily available doesn't hurt, obviously. So I don't hate having some degree of informed regulation and problem solving and the like so long as the market survives and is efficient. And, Battlemaster, I do think rich people much like unelected technocrats and charismatic politicians can at least in theory develop something resembling god complexes at times, though I don't blame capitalism for that so much as power, which is an intrinsic part of most any feasible scaled up political or economic system, like imagine the concentrated power of Marxist-Leninist communist politicians who control the entire economic resources of a nation to say nothing of law.
That said, I do think you (Pat) probably have his political and technocratic aspirations and methods for dominance down pretty well, since it does look like he's trending that way as his main plan. I do think that things like the Stakeholder Capitalist Metrics are a secondary front, and attempt to turn market forces against the freedom of the market itself, though. So he may be trying to chain the market by directly dictating consumer preferences. Though going back to who composes the WEF and its successors, it looks like ultimately a way to put social credit regulatory power for companies into the hands of technocrats and the WEF.
LMAO at unregulated capitalism. I suggest anyone who thinks that is what is going on, go out and start a business. Come back to me about all the lack of regs. Crony capitalism and government picking winners and losers is the problem, because it sure as hell is not a lack of regulations.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 27, 2022, 12:23:02 AM
LMAO at unregulated capitalism. I suggest anyone who thinks that is what is going on, go out and start a business. Come back to me about all the lack of regs. Crony capitalism and government picking winners and losers is the problem, because it sure as hell is not a lack of regulations.
To clarify, I do not agree with Battlemaster that unregulated capitalism is our current system. Nor would I call our current setup my preference or economically sound, in various ways. That said, I still believe what I said about some degree of regulation if properly applied to fix market failures and ensure efficiency, specifically, being preferable to a completely unregulated capitalism.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 12:03:00 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 26, 2022, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 26, 2022, 11:33:41 PM
This is what happens under unregulated capitalism, some people win big and start developing god complexes. Usually the people born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Unregulated capitalism?
Funny how the young future leaders of the WEF are mostly technocrats and politicians. Or how Schwab brags about having his protegees in top government positions.
It's almost like he thinks the way to influence things is regulation and political action, not the free market.
But yeah, let's blame capitalism! And ponies! They seem to just as related. And evil.
Not sure if you're arguing for unregulated capitalism here, or just correcting misconceptions.
I think we're so far from unregulated capitalism that it's a moot point. We live in an extraordinarily regulated society, where nearly everything is weighed down by a ridiculous number of regulations. Did you ever read about the root causes behind the baby food shortage, for instance? The FDA grants one company in each state the exclusive right (a real monopoly) to provide baby food to WIC, which naturally means the big company with the most lobbyists wins. Since WIC is over half the market, that means the government enforced monopolies dominate the entire market, making it almost impossible for newcomers to achieve any real market share. Combine that with protectionist tariffs and import rules, like labeling requirements or marketing delays, and it means that perfectly safe formula that meets the rigorous standards imposed by the nations or extranational organizations like Canada or the EU are effectively excluded from the US market for a variety of irrelevant technical reasons. The result is a market as agile as a rock, with ossified companies protected from real competition. Since there are only a few large players, they're vulnerable to failures or shutdowns, and there are no scrappy outsiders able to take up the slack if any of them fail. It had nothing to do with the free market, and everything do with the government picking winners and losers and keeping everyone else out of the market. From the roots of the financial system that manages the medium of exchange and time preferences, to the health system, to every last consumer good, there's an unfathomable web of regulations. Anyone who talks about "unregulated capitalism" in the present sense is either completely divorced from reality, or lying to sell authoritarianism.
Quote from: Pat on June 27, 2022, 01:47:52 AM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 12:03:00 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 26, 2022, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 26, 2022, 11:33:41 PM
This is what happens under unregulated capitalism, some people win big and start developing god complexes. Usually the people born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Unregulated capitalism?
Funny how the young future leaders of the WEF are mostly technocrats and politicians. Or how Schwab brags about having his protegees in top government positions.
It's almost like he thinks the way to influence things is regulation and political action, not the free market.
But yeah, let's blame capitalism! And ponies! They seem to just as related. And evil.
Not sure if you're arguing for unregulated capitalism here, or just correcting misconceptions.
I think we're so far from unregulated capitalism that it's a moot point. We live in an extraordinarily regulated society, where nearly everything is weighed down by a ridiculous number of regulations. Did you ever read about the root causes behind the baby food shortage, for instance? The FDA grants one company in each state the exclusive right (a real monopoly) to provide baby food to WIC, which naturally means the big company with the most lobbyists wins. Since WIC is over half the market, that means the government enforced monopolies dominate the entire market, making it almost impossible for newcomers to achieve any real market share. Combine that with protectionist tariffs and import rules, like labeling requirements or marketing delays, and it means that perfectly safe formula that meets the rigorous standards imposed by the nations or extranational organizations like Canada or the EU are effectively excluded from the US market for a variety of irrelevant technical reasons. The result is a market as agile as a rock, with ossified companies protected from real competition. Since there are only a few large players, they're vulnerable to failures or shutdowns, and there are no scrappy outsiders able to take up the slack if any of them fail. It had nothing to do with the free market, and everything do with the government picking winners and losers and keeping everyone else out of the market. From the roots of the financial system that manages the medium of exchange and time preferences, to the health system, to every last consumer good, there's an unfathomable web of regulations. Anyone who talks about "unregulated capitalism" in the present sense is either completely divorced from reality, or lying to sell authoritarianism.
Hadn't read that, but am not at all surprised. From what I understand government contracting more generally also slots aside racially and cetera determined quotas for minorities and the like that ignore the overall best pricing and quality option to perform government services. So race is now an artificial qualifier in such markets. The government also more or less disrupts our economy with slave labor via the prison system paying wages well below market price. Illegal labor skirts to my mind reasonable regulations on worker treatment and the like, though that's more a problem with the left not having the political will to enforce some of what we have. I don't hate basic labeling requirements and marketing delays intrinsically, at least in theory they help us get closer to market assumptions of consumer information, although I also think the FDA is corrupt as hell and the fox guarding the henhouse in terms of determining the current necessary levels of regulation. I'm not 100% on board with dropping all tariffs and protectionism, or not using them for geopolitical strategy, especially as regards areas that touch upon national security, but yeah maybe they and the retaliations have been taken too far recently by both parties. I also agree that competition is important, and the US should encourage that rather than monopolies. On which note, I don't really think we should have government health care. Though I think the government should still be involved in exchanges, currency, and monetary policy at some level. (Albeit maybe we should have never left the gold standard under Nixon.) And I think most regulations drastically overestimate negative externalities for justifying taxes and positive externalities for justifying subsidies, including for global warming. I still think, though, that in an ideal system founded on economic principles we need to have some regulation, in part because paradoxically markets can't easily exist at large scale without taxes disrupting said markets and often things like incentive to work and long term growth being lessened by said taxes in order to establish and secure them. We may not be there currently, but I feel an informed public that believes in and understands (my own occasional issue) stuff like economics could potentially help fix America, by providing a rationally stable platform to argue back against specific instances of overreach and underreach(?) from. Anyway, to tie it back to Schwab, I feel like the power of technocrats is strongest when practical knowledge of relevant economic things like what you mentioned above are not widespread and we just outsource our thinking rather than doing stuff like Switzerland's direct democratic engagement. (Thanks for letting me know about that, by the way.) As well as admittedly when we start looking to science as though it can provide normative answers in and of itself.
All that said, I think unregulated markets are something politicians sometimes do promote as a possible solution. And for years I feel neoliberals shafted us with free trade agreements partly on that basis. So I think people who talk about unregulated markets as an idea seriously are in part responding to folks who push that as a legit endgame solution. Not everyone who does is detached from reality moreso than the people advocating that plan as peak economic and social efficiency, to my mind. I feel like that idea has at times been partly actualized too, albeit not too recently. Moreover, I would for instance resent the idea that trying to apply what admittedly little knowledge I have on economics to a related discussion where I thought the topic was being broached makes me an authoritarian, though I also do not think that was your suggestion. I think for a lot of people theoreticals they can imagine matter, especially the simpler and more extreme ones, and that doesn't just mean detachment from reality or make them authoritarian shills, even if I might agree that authoritarians will use anything up to and including MISAPPLIED theoreticals or claiming normative certainty from statistics to curtail genuine liberties and the freedom to disagree.
Edit: Actually, rereading what you posted I think I may have misinterpreted what you meant in your last sentence via that second paragraph. I think "in the present sense" and not "Anyone who talks about 'unregulated capitalism'" was meant to be the emphasis. In which case, yeah, they'd probably have to be either misinformed or potentially lying for the purpose of expanded government reach to think capitalism is currently unregulated as a whole or even leaning mostly towards lack of regulation. I could maybe see the potential for some instances where things could be claimed not to have been regulated or at least not properly regulated, but that would likely take a solid degree of positive interpretation.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 26, 2022, 11:33:41 PM
This is what happens under unregulated capitalism, some people win big and start developing god complexes. Usually the people born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Thats not
real capitalism.
Quote from: Shasarak on June 27, 2022, 05:11:26 AM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 26, 2022, 11:33:41 PM
This is what happens under unregulated capitalism, some people win big and start developing god complexes. Usually the people born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Thats not real capitalism.
No true scottsman much?
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 03:27:56 AM
Edit: Actually, rereading what you posted I think I may have misinterpreted what you meant in your last sentence via that second paragraph. I think "in the present sense" and not "Anyone who talks about 'unregulated capitalism'" was meant to be the emphasis. In which case, yeah, they'd probably have to be either misinformed or potentially lying for the purpose of expanded government reach to think capitalism is currently unregulated as a whole or even leaning mostly towards lack of regulation. I could maybe see the potential for some instances where things could be claimed not to have been regulated or at least not properly regulated, but that would likely take a solid degree of positive interpretation.
Reading your first paragraph was surreal. My entire point is the US market is heavily regulated from the top to the bottom, that anyone who points that out is often told they support "unregulated capitalism". And you responded with things like "I'm not 100% on board with dropping all tariffs and protectionism". It's like someone looked at an impenetrable thicket of dense undergrowth, and said "you'd need a machete to get through that", and your response was "I don't agree with clear-cutting the entire jungle". It's completely divorced from anything they said.
That framing was clearly created by authoritarians who want ever-increasing governmental power, but it's amazing how many other people have unthinkingly internalized it as an unexamined part of their belief system. It's like a shared modern myth, that all the problems with modern society are because laissez-faire capitalism has run rampant. Which is of course absurd, because we are so far from laissez-faire capitalism that we'd have to cross multiple time zones to find it.
Quote from: Pat on June 27, 2022, 10:13:24 AM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 03:27:56 AM
Edit: Actually, rereading what you posted I think I may have misinterpreted what you meant in your last sentence via that second paragraph. I think "in the present sense" and not "Anyone who talks about 'unregulated capitalism'" was meant to be the emphasis. In which case, yeah, they'd probably have to be either misinformed or potentially lying for the purpose of expanded government reach to think capitalism is currently unregulated as a whole or even leaning mostly towards lack of regulation. I could maybe see the potential for some instances where things could be claimed not to have been regulated or at least not properly regulated, but that would likely take a solid degree of positive interpretation.
Reading your first paragraph was surreal. My entire point is the US market is heavily regulated from the top to the bottom, that anyone who points that out is often told they support "unregulated capitalism". And you responded with things like "I'm not 100% on board with dropping all tariffs and protectionism". It's like someone looked at an impenetrable thicket of dense undergrowth, and said "you'd need a machete to get through that", and your response was "I don't agree with clear-cutting the entire jungle". It's completely divorced from anything they said.
That framing was clearly created by authoritarians who want ever-increasing governmental power, but it's amazing how many other people have unthinkingly internalized it as an unexamined part of their belief system. It's like a shared modern myth, that all the problems with modern society are because laissez-faire capitalism has run rampant. Which is of course absurd, because we are so far from laissez-faire capitalism that we'd have to cross multiple time zones to find it.
Wait, was my second paragraph actually originally an accurate assessment to some extent of where you were coming from ie it is stupidity inherently to try theorizing and discussing with respect to unregulated capitalism, then? Legit question, I may be being uncharitable, and I don't want to roll back out a paragraph I thought was probably misapplied and ask for your response to it if it would be a misrepresentation of your position or an attack piece.
Also I agree that both not rolling back some of our tariffs is absurd and even national security is being used as code to give handouts to key industries(noted the former, not the latter, earlier), but also thought you might legit be more on the side of neoliberalism for trade. It's not as popular a position these days, but I figured I should qualify the fact that I think both parties may have overstepped there because of that possibility, and that you and I could also potentially be on different sides of the fence with respect to interventionism through sanctions and the like, or tariffs that protect key national interests even in principle to some degree. Yes, I think both not cutting the jungle at all is sketchy, and clear cutting completely on this issue would be stupid, so I guess we have similar opinions there in practicality. That said, at least with respect to free trade, I feel like not everybody believes that, in part because a lot of people believed in Ricardo's comparative advantage or whatever back when I could talk more easily to both sides of the political spectrum without them flying off the rails. I also said, or at least tried to say things in that first paragraph like that the government needed to stop doing a lot of market interventions that hadn't originally been brought up, to show that I wasn't justifying the authoritarian crimes of the establishment from my perspective, and tried to clarify my positions on the items you had listed as being a problem due to being dosed in regulation. Most of which I agreed on a cut but don't clear cut strategy for, which I thought might be treated as reasonable by most if perhaps not for some ideal. Some of which, like healthcare and going off the gold standard, I thought maybe we should do a complete clear cut, to use the jungle analogy, for. So IDK if trims are all that are needed, much less if discussing clear cuts and unregulated capitalism in some specific areas whether to oppose or SUPPORT it literally are really all that whack. NGL, I feel like you may be underestimating their relevance a bit, though that might also just be the conversational circles I used to run in, and I do feel like some of what I said may have been misinterpreted, though as the writer that's partially my own fault.
Unrelated, any thoughts on my posts about Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics and Klaus Schwab/the nature of technocracy? I put forth some ideas, but nobody commented so IDK if they seemed obvious, stupid/tin foil hat, or just not worth commenting on.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:12:09 AM
Wait, was my second paragraph actually originally an accurate assessment to some extent of where you were coming from ie it is stupidity inherently to try theorizing and discussing with respect to unregulated capitalism, then? Legit question, I may be being uncharitable, and I don't want to roll back out a paragraph I thought was probably misapplied and ask for your response to it if it would be a misrepresentation of your position or an attack piece.
Quote from: Part of that second paragraphI think unregulated markets are something politicians sometimes do promote as a possible solution
You're really internalized this unregulated capitalism nonsense, haven't you?
No politician who has held any real position of power anywhere has ever promoted unregulated markets.
The difference is typically between massively increasing the increasing the amount of a regulation in an massively regulated market, and between slightly less massively increasing the amount of regulation in a massively regulated market. Once a generation or so, there might be a minor trimming of some regulations in a very narrow part of the market, but that's incredibly rare.
So why all this talk about unregulated markets? It's a smokescreen and an attack vector, designed to conceal the real alternatives by strawmanning any possible objections to massive regulation growth on top of massive regulation growth as a ridiculous extreme. It's a way of completely derailing any serious discussion of the issue, and supporting the endless growth of the state.
Quote from: Pat on June 27, 2022, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:12:09 AM
Wait, was my second paragraph actually originally an accurate assessment to some extent of where you were coming from ie it is stupidity inherently to try theorizing and discussing with respect to unregulated capitalism, then? Legit question, I may be being uncharitable, and I don't want to roll back out a paragraph I thought was probably misapplied and ask for your response to it if it would be a misrepresentation of your position or an attack piece.
Quote from: Part of that second paragraphI think unregulated markets are something politicians sometimes do promote as a possible solution
You're really internalized this unregulated capitalism nonsense, haven't you?
No politician who has held any real position of power anywhere has ever promoted unregulated markets.
The difference is typically between massively increasing the increasing the amount of a regulation in an massively regulated market, and between slightly less massively increasing the amount of regulation in a massively regulated market. Once a generation or so, there might be a minor trimming of some regulations in a very narrow part of the market, but that's incredibly rare.
So why all this talk about unregulated markets? It's a smokescreen and an attack vector, designed to conceal the real alternatives by strawmanning any possible objections to massive regulation growth on top of massive regulation growth as a ridiculous extreme. It's a way of completely derailing any serious discussion of the issue, and supporting the endless growth of the state.
I disagree that it's inherently bad to talk about or theorize about, especially within limited market contexts. Though I'll admit that maybe my views on its current prevalence were distorted, and that this is what authoritarians to skme degree want. If nothing else as noted in my second paragraph of my last post I still feel like it has been advocated in specific areas like trade, healthcare, and the like. And is not always wrong within said specific contexts, though not from my perspective in say trade. Likewise, I'm not an authoritarian, do support deregulation within most, I think all, of the contexts you had mentioned, and use my belief that we should intervene mostly just with market failures as a way to ground my understanding of what should be done within the markets. I likewise use economic theoreticals like no regulation within an industry or wherever, including the market more broadly, as a comparison point that helps ground my understanding of what should probably be done, which is sometimes a return to lack of regulation within context (unregulated capitalism, at least contextually). I don't think that's morally wrong or unreasonable, and even if it were somewhat stupid I still could understand people doing it and wouldn't want to demonize that too much. I feel like a lot of what I've said went right past you or isn't being referenced in your posts, including the thread topic related stuff about Schwab, (not that you have an obligation to reply to it, but I was genuinely interested in what you and other people thought on those comments) though you may perhaps feel the same to some degree if I've been misinterpreting your positions or misunderstanding your basic arguments. If they didn't land and get interpreted properly in my brain space, I assure you that was not my intent. I may have stuck a nerve on this particular topic, too, and done a bad job presenting my beliefs and position more broadly. That's on me. Still, I don't think we're as far apart as one might think from a practical reform perspective, if at all. I think I've done a poor job explaining my thoughts on that, but I also think it's true.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:49:55 AM
I disagree that it's inherently bad to talk about or theorize about, especially within limited market contexts.
What are you disagreeing with? I never said that.
You've got a mental block that's preventing you from seeing what I'm saying, and you're filling the gap with things I never said.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:49:55 AM
I feel like a lot of what I've said went right past you or isn't being referenced in your posts, including the stuff about Schwab, though you may perhaps feel the same to some degree if I've been misinterpreting your positions or misunderstanding your basic arguments.
It's kind of pointless to share your opinions on more complex topics with someone when you share a few foundational beliefs and they're obviously not sinking in.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 27, 2022, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:12:09 AM
Wait, was my second paragraph actually originally an accurate assessment to some extent of where you were coming from ie it is stupidity inherently to try theorizing and discussing with respect to unregulated capitalism, then? Legit question, I may be being uncharitable, and I don't want to roll back out a paragraph I thought was probably misapplied and ask for your response to it if it would be a misrepresentation of your position or an attack piece.
Quote from: Part of that second paragraphI think unregulated markets are something politicians sometimes do promote as a possible solution
You're really internalized this unregulated capitalism nonsense, haven't you?
No politician who has held any real position of power anywhere has ever promoted unregulated markets.
The difference is typically between massively increasing the increasing the amount of a regulation in an massively regulated market, and between slightly less massively increasing the amount of regulation in a massively regulated market. Once a generation or so, there might be a minor trimming of some regulations in a very narrow part of the market, but that's incredibly rare.
So why all this talk about unregulated markets? It's a smokescreen and an attack vector, designed to conceal the real alternatives by strawmanning any possible objections to massive regulation growth on top of massive regulation growth as a ridiculous extreme. It's a way of completely derailing any serious discussion of the issue, and supporting the endless growth of the state.
I disagree that it's inherently bad to talk about or theorize about, especially within limited market contexts. Though I'll admit that maybe my views on its current prevalence were distorted, and that this is what authoritarians to skme degree want. If nothing else as noted in my second paragraph of my last post I still feel like it has been advocated in specific areas like trade, healthcare, and the like. And is not always wrong within said specific contexts, though not from my perspective in say trade. Likewise, I'm not an authoritarian, do support deregulation within most, I think all, of the contexts you had mentioned, and use my belief that we should intervene mostly just with market failures as a way to ground my understanding of what should be done within the markets. I likewise use economic theoreticals like no regulation within an industry or wherever, including the market more broadly, as a comparison point that helps ground my understanding of what should probably be done, which is sometimes a return to lack of regulation within context (unregulated capitalism, at least contextually). I don't think that's morally wrong or unreasonable, and even if it were somewhat stupid I still could understand people doing it and wouldn't want to demonize that too much. I feel like a lot of what I've said went right past you or isn't being referenced in your posts, including the thread topic related stuff about Schwab, (not that you have an obligation to reply to it, but I was genuinely interested in what you and other people thought on those comments) though you may perhaps feel the same to some degree if I've been misinterpreting your positions or misunderstanding your basic arguments. If they didn't land and get interpreted properly in my brain space, I assure you that was not my intent. I may have stuck a nerve on this particular topic, too, and done a bad job presenting my beliefs and position more broadly. That's on me. Still, I don't think we're as far apart as one might think from a practical reform perspective, if at all. I think I've done a poor job explaining my thoughts on that, but I also think it's true.
Breaking up your blocks into concise paragraphs would make then far easier to read.
Quote from: Pat on June 27, 2022, 12:25:53 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:49:55 AM
I disagree that it's inherently bad to talk about or theorize about, especially within limited market contexts.
What are you disagreeing with? I never said that.
You've got a mental block that's preventing you from seeing what I'm saying, and you're filling the gap with things I never said.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:49:55 AM
I feel like a lot of what I've said went right past you or isn't being referenced in your posts, including the stuff about Schwab, though you may perhaps feel the same to some degree if I've been misinterpreting your positions or misunderstanding your basic arguments.
It's kind of pointless to share your opinions on more complex topics with someone when you share a few foundational beliefs and they're obviously not sinking in.
Okay, fine, to the first point, I suppose that could be the case. I'm also sorry if you feel I wasted our time, because I know that sort of thing is limited. I genuinely tried to understand, even though I also felt attacked or misinterpreted at times. I'm sure based on what you're saying you did too, and that was not my intent, I should not have done so, and maybe I could have done better. I still thought I was acknowledging and conceding points at times you made that were relevant, and I felt I tried in good faith to respond to your posts within the context of how I interpreted them (which from what you're saying was a little off base) as specifically as I could. Maybe I just didn't get what you were saying at all.
I do likewise agree with you that we share a few foundational beliefs, though I do feel like I try to incorporate them into my stances at least within my head and more broadly more than I am at times given credit for. And hey, I get it that maybe it's not gonna get me to understand everything you say for you to address topics that are more complex if I seem to be having trouble with the simpler ones, and that does answer my some of my questions as to why you seemed to be quoting and addressing much smaller parts of my posts. I usually spew forth my positions a bit willy nilly in the hopes that somebody will find things of value or worth responding to within them, but I can also acknowledge that's not always the best strategy or the best way to keep conversation focused.
If you want to try to continue our discussion, I'm down for that. But I think maybe if it feels like banging your head against a wall I can bow out for now, especially if you have things you'd like to discuss with other posters within the thread.
Also, @HappyDaze, I'll try not to post as many super chunks, though I do sometimes have difficulty organizing my thoughts into super succinct sentence lines and the like. One of the things I was always told I sucked at in school was brevity and organization, so I'm still working on that.
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 27, 2022, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 27, 2022, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:12:09 AM
Wait, was my second paragraph actually originally an accurate assessment to some extent of where you were coming from ie it is stupidity inherently to try theorizing and discussing with respect to unregulated capitalism, then? Legit question, I may be being uncharitable, and I don't want to roll back out a paragraph I thought was probably misapplied and ask for your response to it if it would be a misrepresentation of your position or an attack piece.
Quote from: Part of that second paragraphI think unregulated markets are something politicians sometimes do promote as a possible solution
You're really internalized this unregulated capitalism nonsense, haven't you?
No politician who has held any real position of power anywhere has ever promoted unregulated markets.
The difference is typically between massively increasing the increasing the amount of a regulation in an massively regulated market, and between slightly less massively increasing the amount of regulation in a massively regulated market. Once a generation or so, there might be a minor trimming of some regulations in a very narrow part of the market, but that's incredibly rare.
So why all this talk about unregulated markets? It's a smokescreen and an attack vector, designed to conceal the real alternatives by strawmanning any possible objections to massive regulation growth on top of massive regulation growth as a ridiculous extreme. It's a way of completely derailing any serious discussion of the issue, and supporting the endless growth of the state.
I disagree that it's inherently bad to talk about or theorize about, especially within limited market contexts. Though I'll admit that maybe my views on its current prevalence were distorted, and that this is what authoritarians to skme degree want. If nothing else as noted in my second paragraph of my last post I still feel like it has been advocated in specific areas like trade, healthcare, and the like. And is not always wrong within said specific contexts, though not from my perspective in say trade. Likewise, I'm not an authoritarian, do support deregulation within most, I think all, of the contexts you had mentioned, and use my belief that we should intervene mostly just with market failures as a way to ground my understanding of what should be done within the markets. I likewise use economic theoreticals like no regulation within an industry or wherever, including the market more broadly, as a comparison point that helps ground my understanding of what should probably be done, which is sometimes a return to lack of regulation within context (unregulated capitalism, at least contextually). I don't think that's morally wrong or unreasonable, and even if it were somewhat stupid I still could understand people doing it and wouldn't want to demonize that too much. I feel like a lot of what I've said went right past you or isn't being referenced in your posts, including the thread topic related stuff about Schwab, (not that you have an obligation to reply to it, but I was genuinely interested in what you and other people thought on those comments) though you may perhaps feel the same to some degree if I've been misinterpreting your positions or misunderstanding your basic arguments. If they didn't land and get interpreted properly in my brain space, I assure you that was not my intent. I may have stuck a nerve on this particular topic, too, and done a bad job presenting my beliefs and position more broadly. That's on me. Still, I don't think we're as far apart as one might think from a practical reform perspective, if at all. I think I've done a poor job explaining my thoughts on that, but I also think it's true.
Breaking up your blocks into concise paragraphs would make then far easier to read.
To go a little further, KindaMeh, you seem to respond with walls of words. Which is fine and sometimes necessary if you're sharing a complex and coherent thought that requires significant development. But your walls of words aren't delving deep into a particular topic. They're hitting many topics, often very superficially. To address each of those points requires a separate lengthy essay, and when I gave you one, you didn't really address what I said. Instead, you drew a dozen different conclusions from what I said, none of which I actually believe, and responded to those instead. And when I tried to refocus the conversation on what I said, because there's clearly a fundamental disconnect in basic communication, you complained that I didn't respond to all your scattered points.
I'm not particularly blaming you. This happens all the time, and it's one of reasons I loathe partisanship and sound-bite thinking. Because partisans almost universally seem to create an image in their mind of the Enemy. This is invariably a highly distorted caricature, and assumes the Enemy is monolithic. Even worse, whenever the partisan hears even the shade of a conflicting opinion, the person expressing it is immediately classified as the Enemy, and assumed to possess all the traits and beliefs that have been ascribed to that mental construct. For those who are victims of this type of partisanship, the results can be very surreal, because they're suddenly being attacked for things they never said, and then they're told they're lying when they say they don't believe any of that.
Sound-bite thinking is the habit of jamming a horde of unrelated, short statements of position into a single breathless post or other communication. The statements of position are typically only loosely related, and each is underpinned by a complex web of debatable and often very dubious assumptions, but the whole is always presented as a clear and coherent position based on an unimpeachable bedrock of logic. It's really hard to address posts of that nature, because each separate claim needs to be deconstructed and then addressed separately. And it's usually pointless to do so, because the sound-biter will typically respond with either a vacant and insulting dismissal or another parcel of random soundbites.
You seem to be trying to engage in an honest discussion, and I don't think you're a diehard partisan. But you clearly have some established assumptions about what other people believe, which you're imposing on me. That makes it hard to talk, because it means my only response to all your posts is "I didn't say that". You do have some tendencies toward sound-bite thinking (though you're nowhere as bad as Battlemaster), and you're packing a lot of only loosely related things into each post. That makes it very hard to respond, because I have fundamental differences not just with the long list of things you're saying, but with the underlying assumptions on which they're built. Which takes a long time to unpack, and as I noted, seems fruitless when there's an underlying miscommunication.
I'm not sure what the solution is. I keep trying to engage in discussions that are more than just virtue signaling via aphorisms, but the result has been misery and endless vicious attacks, and I suspect it's a futile quest. The format of the internet rewards brief replies and repetition, and punishes anything longer than a Tweet; and the increased animosity in the internecine squabbles incentivizes skimming vast volumes of content for markers or signals that indicate Friend or Foe, and defending or attacking based on that classification, even if the methods used are dishonest or completely irrational.
Quote from: Pat on June 27, 2022, 01:29:10 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 27, 2022, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 27, 2022, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 27, 2022, 11:12:09 AM
Wait, was my second paragraph actually originally an accurate assessment to some extent of where you were coming from ie it is stupidity inherently to try theorizing and discussing with respect to unregulated capitalism, then? Legit question, I may be being uncharitable, and I don't want to roll back out a paragraph I thought was probably misapplied and ask for your response to it if it would be a misrepresentation of your position or an attack piece.
Quote from: Part of that second paragraphI think unregulated markets are something politicians sometimes do promote as a possible solution
You're really internalized this unregulated capitalism nonsense, haven't you?
No politician who has held any real position of power anywhere has ever promoted unregulated markets.
The difference is typically between massively increasing the increasing the amount of a regulation in an massively regulated market, and between slightly less massively increasing the amount of regulation in a massively regulated market. Once a generation or so, there might be a minor trimming of some regulations in a very narrow part of the market, but that's incredibly rare.
So why all this talk about unregulated markets? It's a smokescreen and an attack vector, designed to conceal the real alternatives by strawmanning any possible objections to massive regulation growth on top of massive regulation growth as a ridiculous extreme. It's a way of completely derailing any serious discussion of the issue, and supporting the endless growth of the state.
I disagree that it's inherently bad to talk about or theorize about, especially within limited market contexts. Though I'll admit that maybe my views on its current prevalence were distorted, and that this is what authoritarians to skme degree want. If nothing else as noted in my second paragraph of my last post I still feel like it has been advocated in specific areas like trade, healthcare, and the like. And is not always wrong within said specific contexts, though not from my perspective in say trade. Likewise, I'm not an authoritarian, do support deregulation within most, I think all, of the contexts you had mentioned, and use my belief that we should intervene mostly just with market failures as a way to ground my understanding of what should be done within the markets. I likewise use economic theoreticals like no regulation within an industry or wherever, including the market more broadly, as a comparison point that helps ground my understanding of what should probably be done, which is sometimes a return to lack of regulation within context (unregulated capitalism, at least contextually). I don't think that's morally wrong or unreasonable, and even if it were somewhat stupid I still could understand people doing it and wouldn't want to demonize that too much. I feel like a lot of what I've said went right past you or isn't being referenced in your posts, including the thread topic related stuff about Schwab, (not that you have an obligation to reply to it, but I was genuinely interested in what you and other people thought on those comments) though you may perhaps feel the same to some degree if I've been misinterpreting your positions or misunderstanding your basic arguments. If they didn't land and get interpreted properly in my brain space, I assure you that was not my intent. I may have stuck a nerve on this particular topic, too, and done a bad job presenting my beliefs and position more broadly. That's on me. Still, I don't think we're as far apart as one might think from a practical reform perspective, if at all. I think I've done a poor job explaining my thoughts on that, but I also think it's true.
Breaking up your blocks into concise paragraphs would make then far easier to read.
To go a little further, KindaMeh, you seem to respond with walls of words. Which is fine and sometimes necessary if you're sharing a complex and coherent thought that requires significant development. But your walls of words aren't delving deep into a particular topic. They're hitting many topics, often very superficially. To address each of those points requires a separate lengthy essay, and when I gave you one, you didn't really address what I said. Instead, you drew a dozen different conclusions from what I said, none of which I actually believe, and responded to those instead. And when I tried to refocus the conversation on what I said, because there's clearly a fundamental disconnect in basic communication, you complained that I didn't respond to all your scattered points.
I'm not particularly blaming you. This happens all the time, and it's one of reasons I loathe partisanship and sound-bite thinking. Because partisans almost universally seem to create an image in their mind of the Enemy. This is invariably a highly distorted caricature, and assumes the Enemy is monolithic. Even worse, whenever the partisan hears even the shade of a conflicting opinion, the person expressing it is immediately classified as the Enemy, and assumed to possess all the traits and beliefs that have been ascribed to that mental construct. For those who are victims of this type of partisanship, the results can be very surreal, because they're suddenly being attacked for things they never said, and then they're told they're lying when they say they don't believe any of that.
Sound-bite thinking is the habit of jamming a horde of unrelated, short statements of position into a single breathless post or other communication. The statements of position are typically only loosely related, and each is underpinned by a complex web of debatable and often very dubious assumptions, but the whole is always presented as a clear and coherent position based on an unimpeachable bedrock of logic. It's really hard to address posts of that nature, because each separate claim needs to be deconstructed and then addressed separately. And it's usually pointless to do so, because the sound-biter will typically respond with either a vacant and insulting dismissal or another parcel of random soundbites.
You seem to be trying to engage in an honest discussion, and I don't think you're a diehard partisan. But you clearly have some established assumptions about what other people believe, which you're imposing on me. That makes it hard to talk, because it means my only response to all your posts is "I didn't say that". You do have some tendencies toward sound-bite thinking (though you're nowhere as bad as Battlemaster), and you're packing a lot of only loosely related things into each post. That makes it very hard to respond, because I have fundamental differences not just with the long list of things you're saying, but with the underlying assumptions on which they're built. Which takes a long time to unpack, and as I noted, seems fruitless when there's an underlying miscommunication.
I'm not sure what the solution is. I keep trying to engage in discussions that are more than just virtue signaling via aphorisms, but the result has been misery and endless vicious attacks, and I suspect it's a futile quest. The format of the internet rewards brief replies and repetition, and punishes anything longer than a Tweet; and the increased animosity in the internecine squabbles incentivizes skimming vast volumes of content for markers or signals that indicate Friend or Foe, and defending or attacking based on that classification, even if the methods used are dishonest or completely irrational.
Well, this is admittedly depressing to read, though perhaps pretty accurate. For what it's worth I do not classify you to my mind as an Enemy or Foe, and had originally thought we were a lot closer on opinions than it sounds like we actually are for specific policy and base assumptions (which was itself a bit of another error in hearing on my part, but yeah). I apologize if it felt that way or if I contributed to the misery and attacks you feel have been (and probably are) integral to the complex Internet discussion experience. I generally try to reign in my desire to be right and be judgemental/assumptive over my desire to understand and learn, though I am not always successful.
I think like you said I can sometimes make bad assumptions about what people are saying or believe, and in part that may admittedly be informed by soundbite thinking, or at least a predisposition towards being primed to hear and react to specific things, and relate them to other topics, whether or not they were the point or even properly there to begin with.
Relating to word walls and how they should probably properly be used for "sharing a complex and coherent thought that requires significant development", I feel like though I try to and generally am convinced in the moment I am doing that. But unfortunately more often I think in terms that wander into interconnected assumptions and are disorganized, as noted with soundbite thinking, and this informs the nature of my postings being not so great in that sense. Can try to be more specific and limited in my points so as not to barrage people and make debate nonviable, we'll see how that goes.
I also appreciate that you consider me to be trying to engage in honest discussion, that means a lot more than you know. If it makes you a bit more hopeful, I think everyone is still learning how to be better at that no matter their age, and I don't think it's a given that politics will stay as divided and undiscussable in complex and solid terms forever. Heck, who knows what even I may be capable of by say even middle age or my thirties, I may not stay this incompetent or think that way indefinitely so long as I make an active effort towards learning. I feel like I get more information and exposure from engaging with folks like you on the internet than I would not interacting, have learned some things over the past few days from most everyone on the forum despite myself, and I think we need informed posters like you more than even you know, even though it may feel like grinding your head against a cheese grater sometimes.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 27, 2022, 05:55:36 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on June 27, 2022, 05:11:26 AM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 26, 2022, 11:33:41 PM
This is what happens under unregulated capitalism, some people win big and start developing god complexes. Usually the people born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Thats not real capitalism.
No true scottsman much?
Pfft, scotsman. Would they even know capitalism?
When I said unfettered capitalism I meant letting rich people do whatever the fuck they want with no controls. That's what we have in America now.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 05:23:47 AM
When I said unfettered capitalism I meant letting rich people do whatever the fuck they want with no controls. That's what we have in America now.
For your edification then, the proper term for what you describe is Cronyism; where the wealthy use their wealth to sway the government into giving them sweetheart deals and not pursue justice for any crimes they commit.
Cronyism or it's more robust brother, the Public-Private Partnership (i.e. Fascism; the State and Big Business working hand in hand) are where we presently sit; with less than half a dozen corporations owning over 90% of our media and massive banks and investment firms (Blackrock, Vanguard, etc.) buying up real estate and smaller independent businesses to further enrich themselves while donating billions via legitimate and illegitimate donations.
Do you really think Hunter Biden's paintings are worth $250k each? Or that he did even an ounce of work for the paychecks he pulled in on the board of Burisma? Take a look at who's on many of these boards and you'll find siblings, spouses and longtime friends of politicians raking in money from the crony capitalists.
Why is our middle class struggling? It's not because of capitalism... it's because the cronyists... in a desire for ever more personal wealth got the government to stop backing fair trade (the principle where you use various means to ensure your workers aren't being undersold by slave labor) for free trade (that there is no moral component to trade, just whatever is cheapest is best).
For the record, that would largely be started by the first President Bush, but would be continued via NAFTA under Bill Clinton and further expansions of trade with China under W. Bush, Obama and now Biden. It's been a bipartisan elitist screwing of the middle class for decades.
One of the reasons President Trump is still incredibly popular in the American Midwest and South is because he actually first talked and then actually followed through on the talk of returning America to fair trade, ending NAFTA and imposing tariffs on Chinese slave labor products so the middle class Americans could actually complete on a level playing field. It was the first time in decades since the middle class wasn't losing ground in the war between wage growth and inflation.
Your fight isn't with Capitalism, it is with the Cronyism that masks itself as Capitalism.
Chris I respect you, so let me point out that cronyism isn't a bug in American capitalism AS IT STANDS, it's a feature.
After the stock market crash of 1929, a shit ton of regulations were out in place on banks and stock markets.
Notice how it ran OK for like. 50 years?
Then in 1980 a popular old actor and his manipulative wife got into the white house because president Carter wanted to end American depndance on Muslim controlled oil supplies. Ever hear of the Arab oil embargo of 1973? Big oil didn't want America off the oil spike, too profitable, and with the memory of the embargo and early concerns about pollution, there were some thoughts that it might by good to get off the oil habit.
So, Carter launched an energy alternative program which big oil didn't want. So we had an economic downturn and the leveraging of the Iranian crisis to put Reagan in office. His first afts were to quietky strangle the energy program in it's crib and launch an all out assault on banking and wall street regulations.
For 8 years banks and wall street put one bill after another on his desk to eliminate the regulations that protected America from another economic disaster like '29.
Just after Nancy lead ronny out of the white house what happened? The SnL crisis and bailout. Unregulated SnLs just plain looted banks, taking hundreds of billions of dollars right out of people's accounts, and the taxpayers were forced to replace it. It was directly caused by Reagan's deregulation jyhad.
Since then the richest have been simply taking unlimited sums of money from the American people as a whole, aided by constant erosion of regulations. Agencies meant to control big biz are ran by people who work for big biz appointed by Republican presidents.
Look at some of trump's apponointees.
What you call cronyism is a product of unregulated capitalism.
Putin has done the same thing, and found out his military has been crippled by his cronies looting it.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AM
Chris I respect you, so let me point out that cronyism isn't a bug in American capitalism AS IT STANDS, it's a feature.
After the stock market crash of 1929, a shit ton of regulations were out in place on banks and stock markets.
Notice how it ran OK for like. 50 years?
Then in 1980 a popular old actor and his manipulative wife got into the white house because president Carter wanted to end American depndance on Muslim controlled oil supplies. Ever hear of the Arab oil embargo of 1973? Big oil didn't want America off the oil spike, too profitable, and with the memory of the embargo and early concerns about pollution, there were some thoughts that it might by good to get off the oil habit.
So, Carter launched an energy alternative program which big oil didn't want. So we had an economic downturn and the leveraging of the Iranian crisis to put Reagan in office. His first afts were to quietky strangle the energy program in it's crib and launch an all out assault on banking and wall street regulations.
For 8 years banks and wall street put one bill after another on his desk to eliminate the regulations that protected America from another economic disaster like '29.
Just after Nancy lead ronny out of the white house what happened? The SnL crisis and bailout. Unregulated SnLs just plain looted banks, taking hundreds of billions of dollars right out of people's accounts, and the taxpayers were forced to replace it. It was directly caused by Reagan's deregulation jyhad.
Since then the richest have been simply taking unlimited sums of money from the American people as a whole, aided by constant erosion of regulations. Agencies meant to control big biz are ran by people who work for big biz appointed by Republican presidents.
Look at some of trump's apponointees.
What you call cronyism is a product of unregulated capitalism.
Putin has done the same thing, and found out his military has been crippled by his cronies looting it.
This is interesting fanfiction. Have you considered collaborating with other alt-history writers, like Turtledove?
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 28, 2022, 11:05:01 AM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AM
Chris I respect you, so let me point out that cronyism isn't a bug in American capitalism AS IT STANDS, it's a feature.
After the stock market crash of 1929, a shit ton of regulations were out in place on banks and stock markets.
Notice how it ran OK for like. 50 years?
Then in 1980 a popular old actor and his manipulative wife got into the white house because president Carter wanted to end American depndance on Muslim controlled oil supplies. Ever hear of the Arab oil embargo of 1973? Big oil didn't want America off the oil spike, too profitable, and with the memory of the embargo and early concerns about pollution, there were some thoughts that it might by good to get off the oil habit.
So, Carter launched an energy alternative program which big oil didn't want. So we had an economic downturn and the leveraging of the Iranian crisis to put Reagan in office. His first afts were to quietky strangle the energy program in it's crib and launch an all out assault on banking and wall street regulations.
For 8 years banks and wall street put one bill after another on his desk to eliminate the regulations that protected America from another economic disaster like '29.
Just after Nancy lead ronny out of the white house what happened? The SnL crisis and bailout. Unregulated SnLs just plain looted banks, taking hundreds of billions of dollars right out of people's accounts, and the taxpayers were forced to replace it. It was directly caused by Reagan's deregulation jyhad.
Since then the richest have been simply taking unlimited sums of money from the American people as a whole, aided by constant erosion of regulations. Agencies meant to control big biz are ran by people who work for big biz appointed by Republican presidents.
Look at some of trump's apponointees.
What you call cronyism is a product of unregulated capitalism.
Putin has done the same thing, and found out his military has been crippled by his cronies looting it.
This is interesting fanfiction. Have you considered collaborating with other alt-history writers, like Turtledove?
Have you ever considered presenting facts to support your views instead of just snark? I know it takes more effort to find and cite facts than just snarkng, considering I presented facts to backup my views. But if your views are valid it can be done with some effort. I know from experince.
Quote from: Chris24601 on June 28, 2022, 09:37:23 AM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 05:23:47 AM
When I said unfettered capitalism I meant letting rich people do whatever the fuck they want with no controls. That's what we have in America now.
For your edification then, the proper term for what you describe is Cronyism; where the wealthy use their wealth to sway the government into giving them sweetheart deals and not pursue justice for any crimes they commit.
Cronyism or it's more robust brother, the Public-Private Partnership (i.e. Fascism; the State and Big Business working hand in hand) are where we presently sit; with less than half a dozen corporations owning over 90% of our media and massive banks and investment firms (Blackrock, Vanguard, etc.) buying up real estate and smaller independent businesses to further enrich themselves while donating billions via legitimate and illegitimate donations.
Do you really think Hunter Biden's paintings are worth $250k each? Or that he did even an ounce of work for the paychecks he pulled in on the board of Burisma? Take a look at who's on many of these boards and you'll find siblings, spouses and longtime friends of politicians raking in money from the crony capitalists.
Why is our middle class struggling? It's not because of capitalism... it's because the cronyists... in a desire for ever more personal wealth got the government to stop backing fair trade (the principle where you use various means to ensure your workers aren't being undersold by slave labor) for free trade (that there is no moral component to trade, just whatever is cheapest is best).
For the record, that would largely be started by the first President Bush, but would be continued via NAFTA under Bill Clinton and further expansions of trade with China under W. Bush, Obama and now Biden. It's been a bipartisan elitist screwing of the middle class for decades.
One of the reasons President Trump is still incredibly popular in the American Midwest and South is because he actually first talked and then actually followed through on the talk of returning America to fair trade, ending NAFTA and imposing tariffs on Chinese slave labor products so the middle class Americans could actually complete on a level playing field. It was the first time in decades since the middle class wasn't losing ground in the war between wage growth and inflation.
Your fight isn't with Capitalism, it is with the Cronyism that masks itself as Capitalism.
If you're interested in cronyism, here's a video you may find educational. Have you heard the term
siloviki?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6yA7Ge0EmY
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 28, 2022, 11:05:01 AM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AM
Chris I respect you, so let me point out that cronyism isn't a bug in American capitalism AS IT STANDS, it's a feature.
After the stock market crash of 1929, a shit ton of regulations were out in place on banks and stock markets.
Notice how it ran OK for like. 50 years?
Then in 1980 a popular old actor and his manipulative wife got into the white house because president Carter wanted to end American depndance on Muslim controlled oil supplies. Ever hear of the Arab oil embargo of 1973? Big oil didn't want America off the oil spike, too profitable, and with the memory of the embargo and early concerns about pollution, there were some thoughts that it might by good to get off the oil habit.
So, Carter launched an energy alternative program which big oil didn't want. So we had an economic downturn and the leveraging of the Iranian crisis to put Reagan in office. His first afts were to quietky strangle the energy program in it's crib and launch an all out assault on banking and wall street regulations.
For 8 years banks and wall street put one bill after another on his desk to eliminate the regulations that protected America from another economic disaster like '29.
Just after Nancy lead ronny out of the white house what happened? The SnL crisis and bailout. Unregulated SnLs just plain looted banks, taking hundreds of billions of dollars right out of people's accounts, and the taxpayers were forced to replace it. It was directly caused by Reagan's deregulation jyhad.
Since then the richest have been simply taking unlimited sums of money from the American people as a whole, aided by constant erosion of regulations. Agencies meant to control big biz are ran by people who work for big biz appointed by Republican presidents.
Look at some of trump's apponointees.
What you call cronyism is a product of unregulated capitalism.
Putin has done the same thing, and found out his military has been crippled by his cronies looting it.
This is interesting fanfiction. Have you considered collaborating with other alt-history writers, like Turtledove?
Have you ever considered presenting facts to support your views instead of just snark? I know it takes more effort to find and cite facts than just snarkng, considering I presented facts to backup my views. But if your views are valid it can be done with some effort. I know from experince.
Why bother? Nothing I say will persuade you. You are just as much a religious zealot as the wokeists.
Thomas Sowell said it best, when he was asked what he would say to a modern leftist: 'Goodbye'.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AM
Chris I respect you, so let me point out that cronyism isn't a bug in American capitalism AS IT STANDS, it's a feature.
After the stock market crash of 1929, a shit ton of regulations were out in place on banks and stock markets.
Notice how it ran OK for like. 50 years?
It went ok except for the Great Depression.
But otherwise ok
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AM
Chris I respect you, so let me point out that cronyism isn't a bug in American capitalism AS IT STANDS, it's a feature.
After the stock market crash of 1929, a shit ton of regulations were out in place on banks and stock markets.
Notice how it ran OK for like. 50 years?
Then in 1980 a popular old actor and his manipulative wife got into the white house because president Carter wanted to end American depndance on Muslim controlled oil supplies. Ever hear of the Arab oil embargo of 1973? Big oil didn't want America off the oil spike, too profitable, and with the memory of the embargo and early concerns about pollution, there were some thoughts that it might by good to get off the oil habit.
So, Carter launched an energy alternative program which big oil didn't want. So we had an economic downturn and the leveraging of the Iranian crisis to put Reagan in office. His first afts were to quietky strangle the energy program in it's crib and launch an all out assault on banking and wall street regulations.
For 8 years banks and wall street put one bill after another on his desk to eliminate the regulations that protected America from another economic disaster like '29.
Just after Nancy lead ronny out of the white house what happened? The SnL crisis and bailout. Unregulated SnLs just plain looted banks, taking hundreds of billions of dollars right out of people's accounts, and the taxpayers were forced to replace it. It was directly caused by Reagan's deregulation jyhad.
Since then the richest have been simply taking unlimited sums of money from the American people as a whole, aided by constant erosion of regulations. Agencies meant to control big biz are ran by people who work for big biz appointed by Republican presidents.
Look at some of trump's apponointees.
What you call cronyism is a product of unregulated capitalism.
Putin has done the same thing, and found out his military has been crippled by his cronies looting it.
You're completely incorrect.
First of all, it wasn't fine after 1929. FDR dragged out the Great Depression so it didn't really end until WW2. That's a big chunk of that 50 years.
Secondly, what about the 1970s? The more than a decade of stagflation was in many ways worse than the Great Depression. And it wasn't caused by the energy crisis. It was caused by Nixon taking the US off the gold standard, and massively printing money. The energy crisis was just a symptom.
Not to mention at least half the "deregulation" (using the word that way is a joke) the left tries to blame on Reagan happened under Carter.
And what caused the crash in 1987? Again, there was double digit monetary inflation for a few years preceding it. Cause, effect.
What caused the S&L crisis? Well, that's complex. It started in the post-WW2 era, when regulatory changes encouraged S&Ls to shift the vast majority of their mortgages from 5 to 20 year durations. But then stagflation happened, and for the period from 1965 to 1982 (until Volcker killed stagflation by sharply raising interest rates), the 5-6% they earned in interest on those mortgages was far below the inflation rate. They were hemorrhaging money, and by 1981, they were all fucked. Nearly all S&Ls had liabilities exceeding their assets. It took 10 years to close them, with several bipartisan attempts to deregulate then re-regulate them, but they were already dead. Can't really blame Reagan for anything, except trying to resuscitate an already dead patient.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 28, 2022, 11:05:01 AM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AM
Chris I respect you, so let me point out that cronyism isn't a bug in American capitalism AS IT STANDS, it's a feature.
After the stock market crash of 1929, a shit ton of regulations were out in place on banks and stock markets.
Notice how it ran OK for like. 50 years?
Then in 1980 a popular old actor and his manipulative wife got into the white house because president Carter wanted to end American depndance on Muslim controlled oil supplies. Ever hear of the Arab oil embargo of 1973? Big oil didn't want America off the oil spike, too profitable, and with the memory of the embargo and early concerns about pollution, there were some thoughts that it might by good to get off the oil habit.
So, Carter launched an energy alternative program which big oil didn't want. So we had an economic downturn and the leveraging of the Iranian crisis to put Reagan in office. His first afts were to quietky strangle the energy program in it's crib and launch an all out assault on banking and wall street regulations.
For 8 years banks and wall street put one bill after another on his desk to eliminate the regulations that protected America from another economic disaster like '29.
Just after Nancy lead ronny out of the white house what happened? The SnL crisis and bailout. Unregulated SnLs just plain looted banks, taking hundreds of billions of dollars right out of people's accounts, and the taxpayers were forced to replace it. It was directly caused by Reagan's deregulation jyhad.
Since then the richest have been simply taking unlimited sums of money from the American people as a whole, aided by constant erosion of regulations. Agencies meant to control big biz are ran by people who work for big biz appointed by Republican presidents.
Look at some of trump's apponointees.
What you call cronyism is a product of unregulated capitalism.
Putin has done the same thing, and found out his military has been crippled by his cronies looting it.
This is interesting fanfiction. Have you considered collaborating with other alt-history writers, like Turtledove?
Have you ever considered presenting facts to support your views instead of just snark? I know it takes more effort to find and cite facts than just snarkng, considering I presented facts to backup my views. But if your views are valid it can be done with some effort. I know from experince.
Have you ever considered providing any supporting evidence for your conspiracy theories? If you can't, then it is fanfic. Limp, impotent fanfic.
Quote from: Shasarak on June 28, 2022, 04:58:32 PM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AM
Chris I respect you, so let me point out that cronyism isn't a bug in American capitalism AS IT STANDS, it's a feature.
After the stock market crash of 1929, a shit ton of regulations were out in place on banks and stock markets.
Notice how it ran OK for like. 50 years?
It went ok except for the Great Depression.
But otherwise ok
The depression was triggered by the crash, moron. Reforms coukdb't un explode a bomb.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 29, 2022, 01:19:50 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on June 28, 2022, 04:58:32 PM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AM
Chris I respect you, so let me point out that cronyism isn't a bug in American capitalism AS IT STANDS, it's a feature.
After the stock market crash of 1929, a shit ton of regulations were out in place on banks and stock markets.
Notice how it ran OK for like. 50 years?
It went ok except for the Great Depression.
But otherwise ok
The depression was triggered by the crash, moron. Reforms coukdb't un explode a bomb.
Dont stop now. I want to hear more of your genius economic theories.