Frankly, this is bullshit. Our economic system has had numerous safeguards for institutions and corporations - such as the "bailouts" that the government (i.e., taxpayers) ensured that big banks would receive and the even large-scale industrial corporations would receive, when their risky models folded in 2008-2009. In a true Capitalist system, they should have been all allowed to fail. Where are your cries for the lame excuses of banks and manufacturing in 2008-2009, or for airlines, commodities traders, and real estate speculators now in the 2020-2022 Pandemic period?
Let them all fail. And then we can talk about the "lame excuses" of the very valid truth that corporations have co-opted our political institutions. This isn't Capitalism, Dr. What. This is syndicate corporatism. And that's not what entrepreneurial people and innovators signed up for.
_____
That is not socailism. It is not near socialism.
Which is the standard response from the socialists.
"No, this isn't socialism. It's just gov't control over the markets."
particular forces that drive it have no countervailing force.
Right out of Marx. Did you quote that directly, or just paraphrase?
Re: Re: Recession to Depression
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sat Jul 16 2022 02:38 pm
Revolution doesn't mean revolutionary thought. We could have a "revoluti where Marxist-Communists take over. That is old thought.
The problem as I see it, is that we are stuck with old ideas and cannot imagine any change. Economically, the debate seems stuck between "Capitalism" and "Socialism" (at least Socialism as envisaged by Marxist/Statists) and we think that we have to choose between the two. W can't imagine any new system or new novel ways of looking at property rights, or carrying on the evolution of our economic system further. Everything is petty. UBI changes nothing. Stakeholder Capitalism is jus the same old system with a new face. Politically we are stuck again with old ideas. Nothing really new, except for maybe the SJW's, but that real is just rehashed Christian guilt.
We're looking at all these problems, and can't think of any new direction go in to solve them. We cant imagine anything outside the "Capitalism/Communism" dichotomy, so we are limited by that. We can't imagine anything oustide of "Liberalism/Conservatism", so we are limited that.
We need something like a new Enlightenment. One isn't coming.
I don't disagree but I see Capitalism/Communism as two sides of the same sys with us presently in the phase where Eastern Communism merges with Western Capitalism which will be destined to collapse into the new world system.
There will always be the haves and the have nots, elites and non-elites. Thi will occur in all systems old or new which have been authorised for our use.
Boraxman wrote to Dr. What <=-
"No, this isn't socialism. It's just gov't control over the markets."
They is actually more akin to fascism.
Besides, modern "Capitalism" is control over the economy by a few
anyway.
You have to show how it is WRONG. Just saying that Marx might have
said something like that doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Kaelon wrote to Dr. What <=-
It was rhetorical. I wasn't talking about "you, Dr. What," I was
talking about "you," the arch-capitalist defending the current
nonsense.
This is what Capital wants though. It wants protection, it wants to use power. Why would people who work with Capital not wan't to rig the system in their favour? They have the capital and the power, so they can. You expect them not to?
I don't see a difference between "syndicate corporatism" and "capitalism". The latter must lead to the former because that is how power is distributed. Capital, not producers, win the power contests so the state bails them out at the expense of producers.
You seem to have a strange idea that what we have today is Capitalism. It's not. Because of all the gov't "regulations" and other elitist interference, it's closer to Socialism - hence the problems you are rallying against.
They is actually more akin to fascism.
Which is a form of socialism.
The ignorant words of Marx. He has a great deal to say about how an economy works - even though he never worked a day in his life.
And if all you are going to do is quote the ignorant words of Marx, that is
not showing that you are right.
And I was talking about not seeing things that I didn't write.
You seem to have a strange idea that what we have today is Capitalism. It's not. Because of all the gov't "regulations" and other elitist interference, it's closer to Socialism - hence the problems you are rallying against.
This is an interesting conversation, and I hope you don't mind if we debate it a bit further.
I think true Capitalism, including the "free hand" of the market, needs freedom in order to function properly. Which means it also needs the freedom to fail. At some point in our history (most likely, the Copper Speculative Bubble of 1908, which resembles a lot of the same Cryptocurrency Bubble we have now), the wealthiest investors started to leverage their tremendous assets to co-opt banking institutions to create insurance models that would, in essence, create soft-floors for failure. This should have been thwarted then and there. But it became the foundation for how our society enabled the rampant speculation of the 1920s, and how it rebuilt our entire economic global order following the Great Depression.
Corporations today are not engines of capitalism or innovation. They are syndicates of vast capital control, and resemble nothing like the intentions of true capitalism -- which were not single-man corporations or self-employed persons. Remember, after all, that the modern corporation traces its origins to the Dutch Corporations of the late Middle Ages and the Italian Banks of the early Renaissance. They had shares, shareholders, risk-taking, reward-sharing, and all of the hallmarks of true opportunity pursuit. What we have today is nothing like the original corporations, because they have become so deeply interconnected with our institutions - especially our fiduriary controls and our political organs.
One might argue that following the Great Depression, the only way to mobilize all of society to combat both imminent economic institutional collapse and to defeat geopolitical threats, was to unite the pillars of commerce and government into a single corporatist continuum. This was certainly the approach of the Fascists and Communists. I would argue it's ultimately what happened in the Western - now Global - Order, in that Democracies learned how to harness and unify the economic structures to unite military and industrial components to thereby coopt commerce for political aims.
If that's the case, then, is there any way to unwind this Corporatist Dystopia in which we find ourselves? Or has the dream of a true Capitalist Restoration gone for good?
_____
Kaelon wrote to Dr. What <=-
I am in agreement. We're in a Corporatist Dystopia, not in a genuine Capitalist structure. I've started a separate thread with Boraxxman to this extent, and encourage your thoughts here. Is there any way to
unwind this madness in which we find ourselves? Or is it too late?
Boraxman wrote to Dr. What <=-
Whatever definition of Socialism you have in mind, must be so broad
that it captures everything but your preferred 'ideal'. Which isn't really a useful definition at all.
OK, so everyone who has extolled the virtues of the Free Market, who
I didn't quote Marx. Show me which of Marx's quotes or words I used.
I'm not even a Marxist.
Boraxman wrote to Dr. What <=-
Pray tell, which countries ARE Capitalst then? Is there even ONE?
It's never too late. But the longer we stay in this mess, the longer it will take to get out. We already have a couple generations of young people who have been miseducated into thinking that socialism can actually work (despite the mountains of evidence showing otherwise).
Not anymore. We used to have one, but then people like you wrecked it.
But that's normal: The Left ruins everything it touches.
I see we have another miseducated person here. I suggest that you actually read history - especially the areas of Italy, Germany and Russia just before WWII.
Ignoring the usual ignorant strawman people like you make: Take what I say to an illogical extreme then claim I'm wrong because of that.
You did. But you not knowing you did shows your ignorance. Until you've overcome that ignorance, it's not possible to discuss anything with you.
This is part of the problem with people like you: You "discuss" from a point of "I'm right. Period." without entertaining the idea that you might be wrong.
So instead of listening, doing your own research, etc. and seeing for yourself, you expect the person that you argue with to do all the research (and wasting their time and energy) just for you to say "I don't agree."
Not anymore. We used to have one, but then people like you wrecked it.
But that's normal: The Left ruins everything it touches.
Kaelon wrote to Dr. What <=-
I wonder what can be done at this stage of Corporate Syndicate control
to unwind this affair? Is it re-education of young people re: the socialist or nationalized / syndicate control schemes that exist today
and why they are actually bad? Is it the creation of a true Capitalist system somewhere else that can show it works better? (Kind of like how the American Colonies demonstrated a lighter hand of capitalism could out-perform English Mercantilism?)
Or are we looking at something more revolutionary in store for our societies across the globe?
Margaerynne wrote to Dr. What <=-
When? During the 80s, when grants and high taxes subsidized education
for many Americans?
During the 60s and 70s when union membership was significantly higher?
During the 90s, when the government was tossing money at anyone who
"knew the cyber"?
Go on, say something firm that you can be fact-checked on. None of
this "Oh, it happened somewhere somewhen, but I can't say it [because
then that'd be committing to a truth]" nonsense.
Go on, say something firm that you can be fact-checked on. None of this "Oh, it happened somewhere somewhen, but I can't say it [because then that'd be committing to a truth]" nonsense.
I'll throw that right back at you. Show me a Leftie program that actually did what they claimed it would. Because
their track record shows that no such program exists.
Both need to be done.
We need to get the gov't out of business. They should not regulate to the extent that they do (why do I need to ask the gov't for permission to run a business?, for example). They should not pick the winners and losers.
But if we don't have a populace that thinks that big gov't is a bad idea, then they will keep electing the elitists who created the mess that we have today.
Or are we looking at something more revolutionary in store for our societies across the globe?
And that's a good question. Not something that I can assess. With America descending, that opens the possibilities that some other countries may take over.
Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Dr. What to Kaelon on Sun Jul 17 2022 02:12 pm
You should actually **read** my messages before replying to them.
It was rhetorical. I wasn't talking about "you, Dr. What," I was talking about "you
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
They is actually more akin to fascism.
Which is a form of socialism.
What? Seriously, what??!
Whatever definition of Socialism you have in mind, must be so broad that it capture
I imagine a world where human beings are fully self governing, where no one isalientated from their own economic activity and we all direct our economic activity
Actually, the arch-capitalists were the ones saying to let the failed banks crash and rot, or if any institution was not willing to do that, to arrange a solution for a profit.
Here in Spain we had lots of banks buying crashed banks because of their customer portfolio.
Margaerynne wrote to Dr. What <=-
I asked you first, Senator. The question was "Can you give a concrete example of what you claimed?"
Kaelon wrote to Dr. What <=-
Completely agree. Also consider the limited areas where a national government should legitimately function - such as defense,
infrastructure, conducting an equitable and non-entangling foreign
policy - and we quickly see where our vast Federal Institutions have failed our people. I forget where I read this, but aren't something
like a third of all bridges and roads in the United States on the verge
of collapse? What a disgrace.
Libertarianism has a long way to go to educate people about the
personal responsibility necessary to cultivate a truly civic-minded society.
You and I both. I don't have especially high hopes for any other Anglo-Saxon or Nordic Country, considering the entire Commonwealth has veered towards socialist principles and even the most promising candidate-countries - like Australia - are positively leftist and
bloated in comparison to what I would expect of a true capitalist
system.
That said, I fear that the United States' socioeconomic decline and impending political collapse will not, conversely, equate to a real geopolitical decline in our standing in the world. After all, the
United States has the most enviable position on the planet - geographically capable of dominating both the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans, dictating the circumstances of global trade unlike any other country, and topographically capable of harvesting vast natural
resources to achieve its organizational aims.
What our next
global order will be, however, terrifies me, and I can only pray we
will long be gone before we have to live through it (or under it).
Road funding is interesting. Speaking about the Interstate road system:
+ Taxes are collected locally.
+ Sent to the Federal Gov't.
+ Who then doles it back out to the states to "maintain the Interstate" in their own states.
But (like here in Michigan) the governors use that money to fund social programs instead. And the unions suck a great deal of that money up as well to "fix" the roads.
That's really the job of the public education system. But the Elites have destroyed that.
Surprisingly, it seems that the USSR is poised to be the economic powerhouse of the future.
I believe that matters less when many countries have missiles that can hit anywhere on the planet. And to be militarily dominant, you need a well-equiped military. But to get that, you have to have an economic engine capable of doing that.
Remember: The USSR fell mainly because we caused them to over spend militarily.
And I don't waste my time and energy on people who refuse to look for themselves.Then I'll continue living as I've been, unconvinced of the point you won't even put the effort into substantiating.
Science is a lie.
Truth is relative.
People cannot be trusted.
Arelor wrote to Kaelon <=-
Actually, the arch-capitalists were the ones saying to let the failed banks crash and rot, or if any institution was not willing to do that,
to arrange a solution for a profit.
In practical terms, this shows when Western Socialists are seen trying to prov
e
Socialism for everybody (such as immigrants or poor people not related to the country)
while Fascists want Socialism for nationals only.
- Science is a lie.
- Truth is all relative.
- People cannot be trusted.
It would also seem that some of the people who point to "science" in some instances believe it to be relative, like truth, in others.
Actually, you can trust people. You will get a knife in between your ribs if you make such mistake, though.
Doubts cast on Truth and Science originate from the fact that most people does not use primary sources to inform themselves and rely on other people (who cannot be trusted) for that.
Kaelon wrote to Dr. What <=-
It's a very strong indictment of the quaintness of our federalist
system. Our institutions have veered so far from Hamilton and Madison that the way in which the Federal Government and States interact monetarily is a profane "saving the phenomenon" that doesn't ultimately benefit constituents or citizens at any level.
In Massachusetts, like much of the Northeast, we deal with a typical inbalance. We pay far more in taxes - both locally and federally - than
we receive back in services. The Federal Government redistributes
income taxes collected to poorer and less developed regions of the country.
Elitists. And now, we have a vastly stupid population that believes things like:
- Science is a lie.
- Truth is all relative.
- People cannot be trusted.
Welcome to 1984.
the West, at least, not anytime soon. You rightly point out that our Strategic Defense Initiative, and other intense military spending under President Reagan, precipitated the Soviet Union's collapse. But this
was possible less due to financial systematic reasons, and much more
due to the limited resources available to Russia to actually marshal
and harness production capabilities to match the rest of the Western Alliance.
I completely agree. The United States is so far ahead of the rest of
the world - not just in sheer military capacity, but also in absolute military technology and innovation
Margaerynne wrote to Dr. What <=-
Then I'll continue living as I've been, unconvinced of the point you won't even put the effort into substantiating.
Not the most desirable outcome for a debate, I'm sure, but it's the
only one you seem capable of achieving. Anything else would require
proof ;)
Oh, ya. But I figured that the Elitists and their hangers-on have been slowly perverting the system since the start.
Sometimes they overstep and get caught, but not often enough.
And it's made worse because a good chunk of that money is skimmed off by various people through the process. Contracts to do something given to a buddy, for example. Grants made to others, which kick the money back in the form of political donations. Etc.
Plus what they claim to be "science" is not science, but rather the musings of the Ignorant Elitists who happen to have a worthless degree.
Postmodernism has been around a long time. Mostly in the ignorant "intellectual" classes.
A general breakdown of society helps them seize power.
Maybe closer to "Atlas Shrugged".
But my point was that we basially had a "military spending war" and we won because we had more money to spend. If we have less, such a war isn't going to turn out good for us.
But we are squandering that lead. The amount of wokeness in the military is truely alarming.
Actually, you can trust people. You will get a knife in between your ribs you make such mistake, though.
No doubt, but there is an inherent cost to the fabric of civilization when y in our civilization.
It would also seem that some of the people who point to "science" in some instances believe it to be relative, like truth, in others.
Very true. U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) once famously said "You
re entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
ery eloquent corollary to the Federalist Papers where Alexander Hamilton summa
zes the dilemma with our Republic - it only works with a well-educated populat
n. Little wonder, then, how we've arrived at the current dilemma.
What? Seriously, what??!
Whatever definition of Socialism you have in mind, must be so broad that it capture
If you check the political programs of actual Fascist groups, you will notice they areMany Western Socialists are Marxist in nature, or more specifically, Trotskyites
Socialist programs.
The main difference between a Fascist State and a Communist State is that Communism
does what it does in the name of The Workers while Fascists do for Our Country.
In practical terms, this shows when Western Socialists are seen trying to provide
Socialism for everybody (such as immigrants or poor people not related to the country)
while Fascists want Socialism for nationals only.
--
You keep mentioning we need an idea from out of the socialist-capitalist spectrum,
then keep suggesting things that Primo de Rivera already advocated for and became
Spanish Fascism.
There are only two ways of managing things. One is to let somebody you trust manage
them. The other is to let people manage them. Your standard proposal is to turn workplaces into Unions, arguing this falls into the category of letting people do the
management, and while variations of this arrangement exist everywhere on the wild
already, I think it is obvious by now that there are lots of industries in which this
arrangement won't cut it.
But we already end up having this conversation so you already know how this goes.
Yes. And I am in full agreement with the concept that true Capitalism, without institutional interference but with some basic safeguards to ensure that consolidation to exploit consumers is restricted, has to have clear risks to match their rewards. Banks have enjoyed vast profits with almost no real risk of collapse.
True Capitalism would have allowed all of the banks to fail. And would have never allowed such a thing as "too big to fail" to exist. But, as we've discussed elsewhere, the Western Global Order is not capitalist. It is a Corporate Syndicate that reflects the consolidation of economic and political pillars in our society stemming from the Post-War Order.
_____
The idea is that if a business fails, you free up the capital for a new business built on stronger foundations/ideals. You don't patch a sinking ship, you build a better ship.
Fascism is only "Socialism" in that the state runs things, but the state doe commerce and production. This is the kind of sophistry that allows North Ko Socialism, only the propagandist elements of anti-Capitalist thought.
I'm not too familiar with him. From what information I've looked up, I can'
We run the most important institution we have, the government, this way. Th but companies not?
Fascism is only "Socialism" in that the state runs things, but the state doesn
represent the will of the people. It is on paper perhaps socialism, but in p
ctice totalitarianism. The public don't really have any practical rights to c
trol industry, commerce and production. This is the kind of sophistry that al
ws North Korea to proclaim itself Democratic. I mean, the ruling dynasty is t
head of the people, right? Some of Hitlers writing sounded positively Marxis
but there was never any real Socialism, only the propagandist elements of ant
Capitalist thought.
The thing is that when I run into your average Humanist who thinks we should all love each other like brothers,the first idea that comes to mind is that person has never stepped out of his ivory tower.
It is when you decopuple work from profit that things go very wrong. For example, if you pay your constructor contractor in advance, you are in for a world of pain, because the contractor has a very weak incentive to perform well now he has the money - money he will use to work for somebody else who has not paid already.
Success comes from realizing that most people will backstab you for a bag of chewing gum and keeping a close circle of trustworthy friends from the 5% that would not murder their mothers for pocket change.
What *IS* true Capitalism? Serious question. IT seems to me like saying if we has TRUE Christianity then.... That just invites debate as to which is the true Christianity. Is it the Catholics, the Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses?
I'd argue that no State represents the will of the people, and therefore, any Socialist State does not represent the will of the people either. Therefore, according to your logic, Socialism is not Socialism (which is absurd).
Fascism didn't make a flag from authoritarism. It made a flag of principles such as not leaveing anybody behind, organizing strategic industries in Unions in order to preserve everybody's rights, and improving the standing of everybody by improving the standing of the nation (because the nation is the people).
Spanish Fascism stablished lots of Socialists programs still in use today, such as Social Security and State funded housing for the poor, because General Franco was the benevolent overseer who ensured not one of us was left behind.
Of course, if you disliked Franco or the vertical Unions, you disliked Spain and therefore you disliked every Spaniard. As such, you were a Communist traitor and we had to shoot you in order to protect our rights.
Rivera is, for practical purposes, the original ideologue of the Spanish phalanx.
One of his biggest selling points was turning every industry into a Union or Cooperative. In fact, when the Phalanx managed to get to power and General Franco was established as the Leader, there was a lot of discontent because his policies were not as aggressive as Rivera's proposals. You can still witness fisfights in pro-Fascist bars when some Franco advocate wants to defend him against a Rivera advotace.
Nation-States are not run like anything resembling a cooperative. They often try to tell us such so we buy into the narrative that we are all the State, but in practice there is a big gap of power between the people up the food chain and the people down the food chain, in such a way that declarations that underdogs have a say is illusory.
ie. we tell Jack that he has a saying and that his voting counts, but this is a farce because:
1) Jack's only method of contributing to set policies is by voting a representative into power, but there are no accountability meassures to ensure Jack's representative will represent Jack once he gets to office.
2) The representatives Jack can choose from are pre-selected from him. The criteria for deciding who may run for office is decided by people who not necesarily represent Jack interests. This is why so many ellections turn into contests to vote the lesser evil in instead of voting somebody you actually WANT to see in office (and this should be regarded as a red flag that the Government's "Board" is not representative at all).
3) The Government has many powers that Jack doesn't have. Jack cannot delegate into a regular Cooperative rights Jack does not have (for example: Jack does not have the right to kill other Cooperative members or seize the assets of other Cooperative members). The Government has lots of powers that people does not have (such as killing people or taking their things). In practical terms, this sets the Government's "Board" in a qualitatively outsider realm, far away from the subjects they rule, as opposed to a regular Cooperative, in which the representatives of a farming group are farmers.
4) Jack cannot quit the Nation State without subjugating himself to a different Nation State, because Nation States won't allow anything else. Nation States are engineered in such a way that every person under their command is a slave who believes he is not a slave, and set up as to extract the most productivity from them (be it work or political support). Rights are usufructary: Jack is entitled to have hens in a pen only as long as the Government does not need the hens itself. In a Cooperative, the Cooperative may suspend Jack's benefits (or so called "negative rights", such as having access to a hen feed bank) but
may not suspend Jack's right to ownership (including self-owneship).
If anything, a Nation State is a corporation with a small board of executives who may force anybody to buy their stocks, yet they are unaccountable for, and the shareholders are powerless worms in their hands.
Socialism and, especially its cousin Communism, are only socialism on paper also. In practice, they are also usually totalitarian and certainly are not really the will of the people. North Korea is a good example. The Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, and Venezuela are also good examples.
First of all, I would never advance dogma as part of a central truth.
Truths have factual elements born from observation and experimentation to establish their systems of tautology. Dogma would advance absolutes regardless of facts, and the idea that "Capitalism must look exactly like this in order for it to be qualified as capitalism," is misguided zealotry, at best.
Capitalism's central tautological tenets, therefore, have been borne out through history, and I understand them to be as follows, at their "core":
1. Free Markets, open to easy and unencumbered entrance by new players, to spur genuine competition so that customers have comparable choices and companies have incentives to innovate.
2. Anti-Trust, so that large companies do not consolidate the marketplace to eliminate the possibility of new entrants from competing or limit the choices that consumers have when determining what to purchase.
3. Transparency, in understanding the way in which companies are managing their businesses so that shareholders can make informed decisions about where to invest and how to cast votes.
4. Accountability, in ensuring that for every reward gained there is a proportional and real risk endured in the marketplace by its actors, and that success is rewarded and failure accordingly punished.
5. Openness, in ensuring that government does not interfere in the participation in its market by creating favored winners or losers, but whose only laws and regulations exist to enforce the above characteristics.
Those are my views. What do you think? Capitalism shouldn't be a religion. It should be a constant civic virtue to make the system work through freedom, anti-trust, transparency, risk-and-reward, and institutional openness.
_____
My questions were rhetorical. We know that people in general want self-gove vern ourselves.
We understand and support the concepts behind Democracy, even though the app doesn't follow for the same people to think that running a pet food factory ering, that the world would fall apart if we didn't skew property rights tow
---
þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.or
I stated that there were different types of Socialism which are in detail, q t you can have State sponsored Capitalism or Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitali
The reason I ask is that usually when I discuss another system, which ticks "Socialist".
Kaelon wrote to Dr. What <=-
Yes. Unions in the Northeast are a disaster, largely because they have outlived their longevity.
I don't disagree that new Unions are needed
to help workers organize and engage in collective bargaining in cases where there is limited competition and corporations aren't engaging
with a long-term vision in mind (such as Starbucks, Amazon, and the
like).
But construction work is notoriously corrupt, and construction
unions are an absurd abuse by and large because union management - not
the workers - skim the real deals struck with government and big
business.
There is no doubt that Elitists remain in power thanks in large part to Roman-style bread-and-circuses. I mentioned elsewhere that if we
managed to break down the cycle of junk-food entertainment ("infotainment") and genuine malnutrition of the vast majority of the population, conditions would start to change quickly.
I am less concerned about Russia's capability to match the United
States, let alone the entirety of the Western Alliance, with military
or economic means. It is, by and large, a third-rate power that has
been exposed being geopolitically beholden to second-world countries.
It is a tremendous humiliation for Putin. China, on the other hand,
has what it takes and has been embarking on a very concerted push.
You think there's "wokeness" in the military? I would love to
understand why you think that.
I think there is an absolute
authoritarian and fascist bent, especially among junior officers and rank-and-file who have not really been thoroughly indoctrinated into
the civic virtues that the Armed Forces are renowned for instilling in their organization.
Arelor wrote to Kaelon <=-
Sorry, but people is inherently untrustworthy and this is evident for anybody who ever tries to push forward a personal project that needs support from other people. Friends are your friends only as long as it does not cost them any effort. Once your friendship requires
maintenance on their part, you can kiss your friends goodbie.
Success comes from realizing that most people will backstab you for a
bag of chewing gum and keeping a close circle of trustworthy friends
from the 5% that would not murder their mothers for pocket change.
It would be like me talking about 'cats', and you imagining house cats when I'
referring to Lions and Jaguars.
The Bruce Schneier book "Liars and Outliars" comes to mind. He goes over wh most people are honest, why a few people are almost always dishonest, and wh honest people will sometimes be dishonest. It's actually quite interesting.
But I disagree with your idea that people are inherently untrustworthy. The are completely trustworthy: to do what is in **their**, not **your**, best interests. Once you understand that, you don't do things like always pay upfront, for example.
Arelor wrote to Dr. What <=-
That is all good in paper.
My observation from playing hundres of board games is that people is actually very bad at deciding for the best option for themselves and
that there are lots of arbitrary psychological factors kicking in. This also applies in real life in spades, but I bring up board games because the impact is measurable.
Fast forward to real life, I can tell so many stories about people backstabbing a third party for 3000 EUR of benefit when a deal between
the two would have made them tens of thousand of Euro. It is freaking nuts.
This applies in so many fields of life. Jack has hut where he throws parties with friends. One day the wind damages the roof very badly and Jack asks for friends for help in order to get it repaired, because
Jack is one-handed and has a wooden peg for a leg. Game theory dictates
that at least one of Jack's friends will help out, because for a
limited investment, everybody will get to continue having parties in Jack's hut. What happens is that everyone of Jack friends stays at home bored forever more because they don't want to spend the meagrest of resources, usually because they never gave a damn for Jack to being
with.
I would argue that Jack didn't have friends. He had a bunch of users who to advantage of him. He was willfully ignorant if he couldn't see that.
The problem with board games is that they are games. Is a person who stands lose their imaginary sword going to play the game the same way if they were going to lose their car? No.
This applies in so many fields of life. Jack has hut where he throws parties with friends. One day the wind damages the roof very badly and Jack asks for friends for help in order to get it repaired, because Jack is one-handed and has a wooden peg for a leg. Game theory dictates
that at least one of Jack's friends will help out, because for a limited investment, everybody will get to continue having parties in Jack's hut. What happens is that everyone of Jack friends stays at home bored forever more because they don't want to spend the meagrest of
And you are ignoring the many instances of "barn raising" and how communities come together to help each other in times of need.
Here is the thing:
No Capitalist has an issue with anybody setting up a cooperative as you describe. In fact no Capitalists would object if you managed to run a whole territory on cooperatives alone, as you describe.
Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Dr. What to Arelor on Mon Jul 25 2022 08:32 am
This applies in so many fields of life. Jack has hut where he throws parties with friends. One day the wind damages the roof very badly a Jack asks for friends for help in order to get it repaired, because Jack is one-handed and has a wooden peg for a leg. Game theory dicta
that at least one of Jack's friends will help out, because for a limited investment, everybody will get to continue having parties in Jack's hut. What happens is that everyone of Jack friends stays at h bored forever more because they don't want to spend the meagrest of
this is the 'hare with many friends' aesop fable.
And you are ignoring the many instances of "barn raising" and how communities come together to help each other in times of need.
that doesn't happen anymore.
Here is the thing:
No Capitalist has an issue with anybody setting up a cooperative as you describe. In fact no Capitalists would object if you managed to run a whol territory on cooperatives alone, as you describe.
They don't like if if you are trying to force them into participating in one. That is one thing that confuses me... there are some people who
really want us to go to a cooperative or socialist model for our whole economy. However, if I point out that it would be fine if they want to get a bunch of like-minded people together and form one for themselves, they
are not at all interested in doing so.
Their interest seems to mostly be in forcing others to do something they don't want to.
* SLMR 2.1a * "Cool! I broke his brain!" - Bart on Principal Skinner
Arelor wrote to Dr. What <=-
I agree. My point is precisely that actual friends you can rely on for anything, even if trivial, are much, much more scarce than people
think.
A funny thing is that University Mafias are composed of people who are
not friends to each other but actualy cover for each other. You can
tell of Cathedratics who don't like somebody, yet they still do favors
to that person in order to get the favor in return later.
Meanwhile, a
lot of average folks don't get that relationships have a maintenance
cost and if you are not contributing at all you will get eventually cut out.
MRO wrote to Dr. What <=-
And you are ignoring the many instances of "barn raising" and how communities come together to help each other in times of need.
that doesn't happen anymore.
Dumas Walker wrote to ARELOR <=-
They don't like if if you are trying to force them into participating
in one. That is one thing that confuses me... there are some people
who really want us to go to a cooperative or socialist model for our
whole economy.
However, if I point out that it would be fine if they
want to get a bunch of like-minded people together and form one for themselves, they are not at all interested in doing so.
Their interest seems to mostly be in forcing others to do something
they don't want to.
Dr. What wrote to MRO <=-
And you are ignoring the many instances of "barn raising" and how communities come together to help each other in times of need.
that doesn't happen anymore.
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The fallacy in moving to a socialist model is everyone has to do their part. Everybody capable of working will have a job, regardless of how desirable or undesirable. If you want to go to school to lbecome a liberal arts major, it may or may not happen based on the society's need for it. If there is a need for floor sweepers, you may become one of the most educated of the floor sweepers. In China, they restrict travel of residents in farming communities so they will not walk away from the fields in order to work a factory job. Socialism may not be that stripped down, however the job you want may not be the job you like. Social assistance will not a bunch of giveaways, either.
However, if I point out that it would be fine if they
want to get a bunch of like-minded people together and form one for themselves, they are not at all interested in doing so.
That's because they are useless people. They want others to do the work (sinc
they incapable) and they want to reap the benefits (namely to not have to actually do work anymore).
Their interest seems to mostly be in forcing others to do something
they don't want to.
Their interest is the same as a scammer: How little work can I do to get something from someone else?
that doesn't happen anymore.
Explain Habitat for Humanities, and what they do.
MRO wrote to Dr. What <=-
And you are ignoring the many instances of "barn raising" and how communities come together to help each other in times of need.
that doesn't happen anymore.
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
... copy *.txt > brain
We've probably discussed this before, but most of the pro-socialist persons I know do not understand this. They seem to believe that they will still be able to pursue their dreams of being able-bodied and having a liberal arts major while doing nothing. I suspect that some of them hope to gain favor from, or even a cushy government position from, those who would be in charge.
I believe that a vast majority of them would be in for a rude awakening.
The fallacy in moving to a socialist model is everyone has to do their par Everybody capable of working will have a job, regardless of how desirable undesirable. If you want to go to school to lbecome a liberal arts major, may or may not happen based on the society's need for it. If there is a n for floor sweepers, you may become one of the most educated of the floor sweepers. In China, they restrict travel of residents in farming communit so they will not walk away from the fields in order to work a factory job. Socialism may not be that stripped down, however the job you want may not the job you like. Social assistance will not a bunch of giveaways, either
We've probably discussed this before, but most of the pro-socialist persons I know do not understand this. They seem to believe that they will still
be able to pursue their dreams of being able-bodied and having a liberal arts major while doing nothing. I suspect that some of them hope to gain favor from, or even a cushy government position from, those who would be in charge.
I believe that a vast majority of them would be in for a rude awakening.
* SLMR 2.1a * "I didn't know chicks in videos wore underpants!"- Beavis
I believe that a vast majority of them would be in for a rude awakening.
A lot of people will be in for a rude awakening if the United States ever beco
s a socialist country. I have had family that came from behind the Iron curti
after world war 2. I have had friends that have come from socialist countries e to all sorts of issues that are a result of a communist / socialist country.
know people that have immigrated here to the us legally and they are terrifie
that it will happen here as well beacuse they see it starting to happen here
that doesn't happen anymore.
Explain Habitat for Humanities, and what they do.
you need to look deeper into that.
that doesn't happen anymore.
Explain Habitat for Humanities, and what they do.
you need to look deeper into that.
I am not sure about their international organization but, locally, they
team up with churches and private businesses to build homes for people who could not otherwise afford a mortgage. Those persons do still have to make payments... the house is not free but is more affordable than other homes.
that doesn't happen anymore.
Explain Habitat for Humanities, and what they do.
you need to look deeper into that.
I am not sure about their international organization but, locally, they
team up with churches and private businesses to build homes for people who could not otherwise afford a mortgage. Those persons do still have to make payments... the house is not free but is more affordable than other homes.
Several years ago, a tornado went through a town in Arkansas. The only homes left standing were HoH homes because they were the only ones built to the latest code.
* SLMR 2.1a * Keep your stick on the ice
Not sure how that works after the houses were built, but I do know one of the house our H4H volunteers at the place I worked at was for a lady whose kids were finally at an age where she could go to work, and she was provided supplemental education from the local junior college to provide certs to prove she had employable skills. The family had to help in building the house, and the families have to go through a selection process so the home
Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Wed Jul 27 2022 04:14 pm
that doesn't happen anymore.
Explain Habitat for Humanities, and what they do.
you need to look deeper into that.
I am not sure about their international organization but, locally, they team up with churches and private businesses to build homes for people wh could not otherwise afford a mortgage. Those persons do still have to ma payments... the house is not free but is more affordable than other homes
some people arent meant to own homes. every Hfh home i know of has been sold off to someone else.
and pretty damn soon too.
Canada's healthcare system is a good example of limitations of services.
Some US cities have multiple hospitals and clinics that may provide
or advanced radiology services. In Canada you might have to drive 100 miles to another city. Second opinions requiring a drastic change in treatmenrt may not be approved. The service you receive will be the best for the budget they provide, but don't ask for more.
I am not sure about their international organization but, locally, they team up with churches and private businesses to build homes for people who could not otherwise afford a mortgage. Those persons do still have to make
payments... the house is not free but is more affordable than other homes.
some people arent meant to own homes. every Hfh home i know of has been sold off to someone else.
and pretty damn soon too.
Not sure how that works after the houses were built, but I do know one of the house our H4H volunteers at the place I worked at was for a lady whose kids were finally at an age where she could go to work, and she was provided supplemental education from the local junior college to provide certs to prove she had employable skills. The family had to help in building the house, and the families have to go through a selection process so the home
is going to someone who can sustain a home and keep it up versus giving a hood rat a new crack house.
One year we had Jimmy Carter and his wife come out and help build some houses in a new community project. Several old rotting houses were torn down and replaced by modern housing built up to code. He was still protected by Secret Service, and instead of looking like extras from Men in Black, they were wearing polo shirts, jeans, and work boots.
Very true. That doesn't mean people should stop offering help to those that need a chance to make their live's better. HfH recipients are required to provide "sweat equity" and help build other homes, and very few qualify. They cannot do any major renovations to the homes until they pay the mortage off, and must notify HfH if they decide to sell the house. Nice part is interest rate is 0%.
I was talking to a born-Canadian once who volunteered to serve in the US Army. It seems like we are often seeing news articles here in the US that give the VA healthcare system a black eye, but he told me he takes
advantage of his VA benefits, as a US veteran, and not his Canadian government-provided benefits. He said that, in his opinion, the VA (and US care in general) was better than what he could get at home.
Exactly. I have a family member who has been involved with H4H, participating on the building crews, for years now. They don't initially help just anyone get a home. They do have to help in building it, and they do have to go through a selection process.
Not sure how that works after the houses were built, but I do know one of house our H4H volunteers at the place I worked at was for a lady whose kid were finally at an age where she could go to work, and she was provided supplemental education from the local junior college to provide certs to prove she had employable skills. The family had to help in building the house, and the families have to go through a selection process so the home is going to someone who can sustain a home and keep it up versus giving a hood rat a new crack house.
Exactly. I have a family member who has been involved with H4H, participating on the building crews, for years now. They don't initially help just anyone get a home. They do have to help in building it, and they do have to go through a selection process.
One year we had Jimmy Carter and his wife come out and help build some hou in a new community project. Several old rotting houses were torn down and replaced by modern housing built up to code. He was still protected by Secret Service, and instead of looking like extras from Men in Black, they were wearing polo shirts, jeans, and work boots.
I am guessing that Jimmy puts them to work. :) 20+ years ago, Carter was here in KY working with a similar group in an event called "Hammering in
the Hills" where they were building homes in poorer areas of Appalachia.
Jimmy Carter was not great as a President when it comes to economics, but
he is one of the few recent ones that has really put an effort behind
trying to make lives better for people.
* SLMR 2.1a * What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind!
Indeed. Carter is better know for what he did outside the office than when he was in the office.
One of the my teachers was a member of the Sotuhwest Michigan Economics Club, and each month they would bring in a speaker. He attended the time Carter spoke. He liked Carter becuase there were times when Carter failed, but was also ahead of the curve when it came to energy conservation.
After the speech, the line was long for getting autographs, so he went tothe restroom first. While finishing up a tthe urinal, a Secret Serviceman came in, checked all the stalls, then gave the "all clear" for Carter to use the
Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Moondog to MRO on Thu Jul 28 2022 11:00 am
Very true. That doesn't mean people should stop offering help to those t need a chance to make their live's better. HfH recipients are required to provide "sweat equity" and help build other homes, and very few qualify. They cannot do any major renovations to the homes until they pay the mort off, and must notify HfH if they decide to sell the house. Nice part is interest rate is 0%.
nobody ever gave me any help so why should other people have it easy? especially when they arent cut out for it after getting so many handouts.
Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Dumas Walker to MOONDOG on Thu Jul 28 2022 04:25 pm
Exactly. I have a family member who has been involved with H4H, participating on the building crews, for years now. They don't initially help just anyone get a home. They do have to help in building it, and th do have to go through a selection process.
no only do some people not have what it takes to OWN a home, not many people
Exactly. I have a family member who has been involved with H4H, participating on the building crews, for years now. They don't initially help just anyone get a home. They do have to help in building it, and they
do have to go through a selection process.
no only do some people not have what it takes to OWN a home, not many people h
e what it takes to help build a home.
nobody ever gave me any help so why should other people have it easy? especially when they arent cut out for it after getting so many handouts.
The objective is to get people who are on the verge of no longer needing handouts out of that trap and back into regular society. If you didn't need help, no one will lend you a hand. Easy is a relative term. When people are born, the cards may already ben stacked against them. Some have to climb further up the rope to get clear of rising water. They might have to fight their own peers pulling them down.
Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Moondog to MRO on Fri Jul 29 2022 11:31 am
nobody ever gave me any help so why should other people have it easy? especially when they arent cut out for it after getting so many handou
The objective is to get people who are on the verge of no longer needing handouts out of that trap and back into regular society. If you didn't n help, no one will lend you a hand. Easy is a relative term. When people are born, the cards may already ben stacked against them. Some have to climb further up the rope to get clear of rising water. They might have fight their own peers pulling them down.
that's just a bunch of words without meaning. i got myself out of the hole. other people can do that too.
Over the years, I have known people who lived behind the Iron Curtain, as well as that have fled Vietnam and mainland China. As you may have noticed, when you mention such people to any of your "friends" that hope for our country to become socialist/communist, they will downplay their experiences, as if it was their fault that they did not "enjoy" life in such a place.
Some of them must live in a dreamworld.
Over the years, I have known people who lived behind the Iron Curtain, as well as that have fled Vietnam and mainland China. As you may have noticed, when you mention such people to any of your "friends" that hope for our country to become socialist/communist, they will downplay their experiences, as if it was their fault that they did not "enjoy" life in such a place.
Some of them must live in a dreamworld.
Brokenmind wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Over the years, I have known people who lived behind the Iron Curtain, as well as that have fled Vietnam and mainland China. As you may have noticed, when you mention such people to any of your "friends" that hope for our country to become socialist/communist, they will downplay their experiences, as if it was their fault that they did not "enjoy" life in such a place.
Some of them must live in a dreamworld.
A dreamworld / another reality / or not able to be open and
transparent and will get offened if corrected thats alot of the
problem in todays world also.
Quoting Gamgee to Brokenmind <=-
Brokenmind wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Over the years, I have known people who lived behind the Iron Curtain, as well as that have fled Vietnam and mainland China. As you may have noticed, when you mention such people to any of your "friends" that hope for our country to become socialist/communist, they will downplay their experiences, as if it was their fault that they did not "enjoy" life in such a place.
Some of them must live in a dreamworld.
A dreamworld / another reality / or not able to be open and
transparent and will get offened if corrected thats alot of the
problem in todays world also.
Spelling and grammar are some other major problems in today's world.
... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
Cougar428 wrote to GAMGEE <=-
A dreamworld / another reality / or not able to be open and
transparent and will get offened if corrected thats alot of the
problem in todays world also.
Spelling and grammar are some other major problems in today's world.
... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
Hey there Gamgee. I'm new here, but looking at some of your
messages, it appears that you take your tagline seriously.
Over the years, I have known people who lived behind the Iron Curtain, as
well as that have fled Vietnam and mainland China. As you may have noticed, when you mention such people to any of your "friends" that hope for our country to become socialist/communist, they will downplay their experiences, as if it was their fault that they did not "enjoy" life in such a place.
Some of them must live in a dreamworld.
A dreamworld / another reality / or not able to be open and transparent and wi
get offened if corrected thats alot of the problem in todays world also.
Indeed it is. Another part of that problem is being afraid to offend those types of folks. Instead our society has taken the path of accepting bad behavior, that was past unacceptable, and then for some unknown reason expecting good to come out of it.
hosIndeed it is. Another part of that problem is being afraid to offend
types of folks. Instead our society has taken the path of accepting bad behavior, that was past unacceptable, and then for some unknown reason expecting good to come out of it.
I agree and it's not helping anyone
| Sysop: | tracker1 |
|---|---|
| Location: | Phoenix, AZ |
| Users: | 53 |
| Nodes: | 25 (0 / 25) |
| Uptime: | 83:42:39 |
| Calls: | 357 |
| Files: | 1,364 |
| Messages: | 41,294 |