Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(09-17-2018, 07:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Government has a role in a democratic society for facilitating useful investments that private industry could never do well or equitably. An example is K-12 education. I know, I know --- manor lords and slave-owning planters did train their serfs and slaves ... to be serfs and slaves. We all benefit from mass literacy and competence with arithmetic. Who would pay -- except us all? Civics? The problem is that what might be good for us all (an electorate that can reject demagogues like Hugo Chavez or Donald Trump) is hard to link to any personal gain. We generally think democracy a good thing, as non-democracies almost invariably treat the masses badly. But if you are to rely upon employers to do the education for limited purposes -- serfs and slaves do not vote and must never be allowed to vote if they are to remain serfs and slaves.

There are many other examples,  Provide road and airport infrastructure.  Maintain standing armed forces.  Etc...  Fund these through taxation.  It doesn't matter if you have no children, owned a car, didn't own a plane, or disagreed with the recent wars.  It is traditional to not ask those questions, to tax anyway.

One way of looking at money is as a prize, as a reward.  If you contribute to a society, you are rewarded by wealth.  Regulation by government to make labor safer, to lesson the division of wealth, anything, is viewed negatively.  The less regulation done, say many reds, the better off everyone is supposedly.

The other perspective is that of an economist.  Money is akin to a lubricant.  It exists to replace barter as a means of exchange and distribution.  Like a lubricant, it is possible to have to little or too much.  The government, as producer, consumer and distributor of money, has as part of its job to distribute money as needed.  Giving more than enough to some and nothing to others is not ideal, is not productive.

That is one difference between red and blue.  The red do not care about the uneven distribution.  They only care that they and those like them get as much as they can.  The blue (or many of them) would like to see the system inclusive, all folks contributing, to make the system itself work as well as possible.

(09-17-2018, 07:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 07:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Government has a role in a democratic society for facilitating useful investments that private industry could never do well or equitably. An example is K-12 education. I know, I know --- manor lords and slave-owning planters did train their serfs and slaves ... to be serfs and slaves. We all benefit from mass literacy and competence with arithmetic. Who would pay -- except us all? Civics? The problem is that what might be good for us all (an electorate that can reject demagogues like Hugo Chavez or Donald Trump) is hard to link to any personal gain. We generally think democracy a good thing, as non-democracies almost invariably treat the masses badly. But if you are to rely upon employers to do the education for limited purposes -- serfs and slaves do not vote and must never be allowed to vote if they are to remain serfs and slaves.

There are many other examples,  Provide road and airport infrastructure.  Maintain standing armed forces.  Etc...  Fund these through taxation.  It doesn't matter if you have no children, owned a car, didn't own a plane, or disagreed with the recent wars.  It is traditional to not ask those questions, to tax anyway.

Reasonable enough because vehicles deliver food to your grocer, clothes to your haberdasher, and... You may take a flight sometime. It's hard to determine who gets the biggest benefits. The cost of transportation goes into everything that one buys, and some people buy more stuff than others do.

Quote:One way of looking at money is as a prize, as a reward.  If you contribute to a society, you are rewarded by wealth.  Regulation by government to make labor safer, to lesson the division of wealth, anything, is viewed negatively.  The less regulation done, say many reds,, the better off everyone is supposedly.

Human costs are difficult to calculate. What happens when a poor breadiwnner dies in an industrial accident? Other poor people, typically that breadwinner's family, can go into destitution.

Quote:The other perspective is that of an economist.  Money is akin to a lubricant.  It exists to replace barter as a means of exchange and distribution.  Like a lubricant, it is possible to have to little or too much.  The government, as producer, consumer and distributor of money, has as part of its job to distribute money as needed.  Giving more than enough to some and nothing to others is not ideal, is not productive.

Societies of extreme inequality might get terribly inefficient or dehumanizing, if not both.

Quote:That is one difference between red and blue.  The red do not care about the uneven distribution.  They only care the they and those like them get as much as they can.  The blue (or many of them) would like to see the system inclusive, all folks contributing, to make the system itself work as well as possible.

It could hardly be simpler.

(09-17-2018, 07:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 03:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Blues don't look upon bosses as people looking out for us. Blues look upon bosses as out to make money-- and frequently do so at the expense of others if they are not taxed and regulated properly. If reds were looking after their own economic interests, they would see the bosses in exactly the same way. Instead, they vote for the bosses, based on their prejudices against poor, non-white people. And then they wonder why some blues call them racists.

This was not always the case.  My father joined the Bell System just after World War II.  He was from a New England Telephone family, with a grandfather, father, mother and uncle once hired by the company.  It was said that once you were hired by a Bell company, they would look after you for life, and it went beyond just one generation.  My second job was with New England Telephone, a summer job as a janitor before going off to college.

He told a bunch of stories, including that of an immigrant who died with no family on this side of the Atlantic.  Her supervising operator became family, did every thing expected of family to make the funeral arrangements.  People then took care of coworkers, and the big corporations encouraged it.

I was let go decades later as an engineer just before becoming vested in health care.  My uncle was also let go, only to be rehired as a contractor, someone expendable during a downturn.  The idea of a two way loyalty with the employee was long forgotten.  Ironically, I was let go by Verizon.  They had recently bought my division of GTE.

Trumps slogan is about making America great again.  I suspect he doesn't know or care about what once did make America great.  The commies made a joke of it.  "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."  That is not the way to greatness.

Good story. Corporations were similar to socialist countries then; welfare capitalism it was called. Good times, except for those of marginal communities, and if you liked conformist, spirit-dead culture. But there was a national consensus forged in the great crisis, and spanning the first turning and mostly well into the second. It may have been a narrow window in time, as we look at it now, between the age of the robber barons, when workers often had to fight for their rights and fair treatment, and the age of the corporate raiders and junk bond investors, when the trickle-down theory took hold.

David Horn wrote:

"If Beto O'Rouke wins, it will be a seachange in US politics."

It could be indeed.

I wonder if it could upend my presidential prediction method too. I know only some members here are interested in this, but it's a good place to try out ideas.

Beto has a very low horoscope score as a possible presidential candidate, with a high negative number: 10-22. Yet he seems to be making all the right moves in a state that is not favorable to candidates as progressive as he is. He is apparently skilled and charismatic, defying what I would have expected from his score. Texas demographics are shifting, and Trump is not as popular here as Reagan and the Bush's were. Nor is Ted Cruz a very good senator, and he has an even lower score (4-11). But Beto is destined to be a rising star, especially if he can pull off a win this November.

This would be a sea-change if a progressive can win in a state as reactionary as Texas, full of southern Baptists, gun-lovers, and believers in rugged individualism symbolized by white cowboys on Texas ranches.

The scores in my horoscope aspect system are based on which presidential candidates have appealed to Americans up until now. Very idealistic types have not fared very well, and therefore some of the aspects which those types tend to have in their chart have neutral or negative scoring. What if some candidates like Beto can actually shift the preferences of Americans, and this is a long-term sea change? Then the scoring for those aspects might shift too. That would take generations, and meanwhile the scores might often be wrong.

I wouldn't bet on this happening, even if Beto wins over Cruz. If he runs for president, I would expect him to lose. But, I could be wrong!

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

(09-17-2018, 07:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 03:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Blues don't look upon bosses as people looking out for us. Blues look upon bosses as out to make money-- and frequently do so at the expense of others if they are not taxed and regulated properly. If reds were looking after their own economic interests, they would see the bosses in exactly the same way. Instead, they vote for the bosses, based on their prejudices against poor, non-white people. And then they wonder why some blues call them racists.

This was not always the case.  My father joined the Bell System just after World War II.  He was from a New England Telephone family, with a grandfather, father, mother and uncle once hired by the company.  It was said that once you were hired by a Bell company, they would look after you for life, and it went beyond just one generation.  My second job was with New England Telephone, a summer job as a janitor before going off to college.

He told a bunch of stories, including that of an immigrant who died with no family on this side of the Atlantic.  Her supervising operator became family, did every thing expected of family to make the funeral arrangements.  People then took care of coworkers, and the big corporations encouraged it.

I was let go decades later as an engineer just before becoming vested in health care.  My uncle was also let go, only to be rehired as a contractor, someone expendable during a downturn.  The idea of a two way loyalty with the employee was long forgotten.  Ironically, I was let go by Verizon.  They had recently bought my division of GTE.

Trumps slogan is about making America great again.  I suspect he doesn't know or care about what once did make America great.  The commies made a joke of it.  "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."  That is not the way to greatness.

There was a brief period of true comity, when many companies saw their workforces as vital and worthwhile.  They also saw their vendors, customers and localities as valuable parts of the business.  That died when the idea that companies are only in business to maximize shareholder value.  That's a toxic POV, and one that can't stand the test of time.  On the other hand, it CAN stand for a LONG time, as it already has.

(09-17-2018, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The scores in my horoscope aspect system are based on which presidential candidates have appealed to Americans up until now. Very idealistic types have not fared very well, and therefore some of the aspects which those types tend to have in their chart have neutral or negative scoring. What if some candidates like Beto can actually shift the preferences of Americans, and this is a long-term sea change? Then the scoring for those aspects might shift too. That would take generations, and meanwhile the scores might often be wrong.

I wouldn't bet on this happening, even if Beto wins over Cruz. If he runs for president, I would expect him to lose. But, I could be wrong!

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Actually, the shift should be a result of the 4T.  Then, and only then, can tradition be cast aside because tradition is the problem.  We don't have a wide path to a successful 4T, because the forces arrayed against it are still very strong, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.  FDR lead the country after decades of GOP business conservatives and rightwing Democrats like Woodrow Wilson ran the country for the plutocrats, yet he succeeded anyway.

(09-18-2018, 03:15 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The scores in my horoscope aspect system are based on which presidential candidates have appealed to Americans up until now. Very idealistic types have not fared very well, and therefore some of the aspects which those types tend to have in their chart have neutral or negative scoring. What if some candidates like Beto can actually shift the preferences of Americans, and this is a long-term sea change? Then the scoring for those aspects might shift too. That would take generations, and meanwhile the scores might often be wrong.

I wouldn't bet on this happening, even if Beto wins over Cruz. If he runs for president, I would expect him to lose. But, I could be wrong!

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Actually, the shift should be a result of the 4T.  Then, and only then, can tradition be cast aside because tradition is the problem.  We don't have a wide path to a successful 4T, because the forces arrayed against it are still very strong, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.  FDR lead the country after decades of GOP business conservatives and rightwing Democrats like Woodrow Wilson ran the country for the plutocrats, yet he succeeded anyway.

In the above paragraph, I might use regeneracy instead of 4T.  I might use culture instead of tradition.  I would say the 100 Days and Pearl Harbor were the two key triggers of that double 4T.  FDR in many respects acted after the regeneracies, though he did much to get the country ready before Pearl Harbor.

In modern times it might be possible to shift the middle of the country enough away from the unraveling memes towards the blue.  It might be possible to form a progressive juggernaut.  There might come something to throw tradition aside, some form of catalyst or trigger.  Trump is just the guy to do it, or the middle of the country could reject Trump while still holding firm to the unraveling memes.  I am nervous that this might happen, that they blame Trump on Trump and try to elect someone like enough to Palin or Trump to draw their attention, but sane.  They might recognize their Establishment as pawns of the rich, and Trump as incompetent, yet still chase the dream of making the old values work.

But at any rate, it will happen eventually.  The problems are real enough and must eventually be solved.  I'm not sure it will happen any time soon.

(09-18-2018, 03:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 03:15 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The scores in my horoscope aspect system are based on which presidential candidates have appealed to Americans up until now. Very idealistic types have not fared very well, and therefore some of the aspects which those types tend to have in their chart have neutral or negative scoring. What if some candidates like Beto can actually shift the preferences of Americans, and this is a long-term sea change? Then the scoring for those aspects might shift too. That would take generations, and meanwhile the scores might often be wrong.

I wouldn't bet on this happening, even if Beto wins over Cruz. If he runs for president, I would expect him to lose. But, I could be wrong!

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Actually, the shift should be a result of the 4T.  Then, and only then, can tradition be cast aside because tradition is the problem.  We don't have a wide path to a successful 4T, because the forces arrayed against it are still very strong, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.  FDR lead the country after decades of GOP business conservatives and rightwing Democrats like Woodrow Wilson ran the country for the plutocrats, yet he succeeded anyway.

In the above paragraph, I might use regeneracy instead of 4T.  I might use culture instead of tradition.  I would say the 100 Days and Pearl Harbor were the two key triggers of that double 4T.  FDR in many respects acted after the regeneracies, though he did much to get the country ready before Pearl Harbor.

In modern times it might be possible to shift the middle of the country enough away from the unraveling memes towards the blue.  It might be possible to form a progressive juggernaut.  There might come something to throw tradition aside, some form of catalyst or trigger.  Trump is just the guy to do it, or the middle of the country could reject Trump while still holding firm to the unraveling memes.  I am nervous that this might happen, that they blame Trump on Trump and try to elect someone like enough to Palin or Trump to draw their attention, but sane.  They might recognize their Establishment as pawns of the rich, and Trump as incompetent, yet still chase the dream of making the old values work.

But at any rate, it will happen eventually.  The problems are real enough and must eventually be solved.  I'm not sure it will happen any time soon.

What it means, is just that it won't be easy. The regressive memes (which dominated the unravelling) are still strong, and it will be scary. The two sides are lined up for a fight, which is what this 4T is about. The odds as I see it favor success for the blue. That is my cosmic prediction, but many demographers see the same thing. Moderate progressive is the majority; the system is stacked by the regressives to keep them in power. A 4T is when walls get busted. FDR and his forces busted them last time; it will happen again. I agree with Cameron Kasky. I look ahead 10 years and I see light.

By the way, looking again at Beto's score, his rise is a scary prospect, because there's no way he could EVER win the presidency. The Democrats must choose a potential winner, or things will get very tough for the blue team. The current leaders for the nomination cannot win the general election. Many observers agree. I hope Beto wins the Senate race, but I can't even predict that now. The main thing I see is that, as he gets older, he would exhaust himself. He would push too hard and lose his caution. If he wins, he must stay in the Senate and not run for president.

(09-18-2018, 05:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 03:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 03:15 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The scores in my horoscope aspect system are based on which presidential candidates have appealed to Americans up until now. Very idealistic types have not fared very well, and therefore some of the aspects which those types tend to have in their chart have neutral or negative scoring. What if some candidates like Beto can actually shift the preferences of Americans, and this is a long-term sea change? Then the scoring for those aspects might shift too. That would take generations, and meanwhile the scores might often be wrong.

I wouldn't bet on this happening, even if Beto wins over Cruz. If he runs for president, I would expect him to lose. But, I could be wrong!

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Actually, the shift should be a result of the 4T.  Then, and only then, can tradition be cast aside because tradition is the problem.  We don't have a wide path to a successful 4T, because the forces arrayed against it are still very strong, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.  FDR lead the country after decades of GOP business conservatives and rightwing Democrats like Woodrow Wilson ran the country for the plutocrats, yet he succeeded anyway.

In the above paragraph, I might use regeneracy instead of 4T.  I might use culture instead of tradition.  I would say the 100 Days and Pearl Harbor were the two key triggers of that double 4T.  FDR in many respects acted after the regeneracies, though he did much to get the country ready before Pearl Harbor.

In modern times it might be possible to shift the middle of the country enough away from the unraveling memes towards the blue.  It might be possible to form a progressive juggernaut.  There might come something to throw tradition aside, some form of catalyst or trigger.  Trump is just the guy to do it, or the middle of the country could reject Trump while still holding firm to the unraveling memes.  I am nervous that this might happen, that they blame Trump on Trump and try to elect someone like enough to Palin or Trump to draw their attention, but sane.  They might recognize their Establishment as pawns of the rich, and Trump as incompetent, yet still chase the dream of making the old values work.

But at any rate, it will happen eventually.  The problems are real enough and must eventually be solved.  I'm not sure it will happen any time soon.

What it means, is just that it won't be easy. The regressive memes (which dominated the unravelling) are still strong, and it will be scary. The two sides are lined up for a fight, which is what this 4T is about. The odds as I see it favor success for the blue. That is my cosmic prediction, but many demographers see the same thing. Moderate progressive is the majority; the system is stacked by the regressives to keep them in power. A 4T is when walls get busted. FDR and his forces busted them last time; it will happen again. I agree with Cameron Kasky. I look ahead 10 years and I see light.

By the way, looking again at Beto's score, his rise is a scary prospect, because there's no way he could EVER win the presidency. The Democrats must choose a potential winner, or things will get very tough for the blue team. The current leaders for the nomination cannot win the general election. Many observers agree. I hope Beto wins the Senate race, but I can't even predict that now. The main thing I see is that, as he gets older, he would exhaust himself. He would push too hard and lose his caution. If he wins, he must stay in the Senate and not run for president.

Moderate progressive may well be the new majority within the Democratic party, a few blue states and most blue/green districts. You keep thinking & speaking as if we live in a democracy when we actually live in a republic. Like I said, I could live without California. I assume that Californians would be given a choice of whether to stay American and remain with America or identify as a Californian and accept whatever system that a group of blues decide is best for all people who remain in California. I don't care if California goes back to building roads like our ancestors did back in good old days.

(09-18-2018, 06:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Moderate progressive may well be the new majority within the Democratic party, a few blue states and most blue/green  districts. You keep thinking & speaking as if  we live in a democracy when we actually live in a republic. Like I said, I could live without California. I assume that Californians would be given a choice of whether to stay American and remain with America or identify as a Californian and accept whatever system that a group of blues decide is best for all people who remain in California. I don't care if California goes back to building roads like our ancestors did back in good old days.

Well, you are the extremist. For most people, the system as it is isn't bad enough to tear it down. The Spiral of Violence is not escalating domestically. The see saw has been switching back and forth regularly, so folks are used to living under really bad presidents from their perspective. This is to be resolved by a political brouhaha, rather than old style Industrial Age violence.

The demographics and the issues will settle it, eventually. Every year, the Red Boomers get older and the green issues become easier to see. We just have to suffer through the red nonsense before the juggernaught eventually develops

It could take a while. Cultures are incredibly stubborn.

(09-17-2018, 07:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 07:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Government has a role in a democratic society for facilitating useful investments that private industry could never do well or equitably. An example is K-12 education. I know, I know --- manor lords and slave-owning planters did train their serfs and slaves ... to be serfs and slaves. We all benefit from mass literacy and competence with arithmetic. Who would pay -- except us all? Civics? The problem is that what might be good for us all (an electorate that can reject demagogues like Hugo Chavez or Donald Trump) is hard to link to any personal gain. We generally think democracy a good thing, as non-democracies almost invariably treat the masses badly. But if you are to rely upon employers to do the education for limited purposes -- serfs and slaves do not vote and must never be allowed to vote if they are to remain serfs and slaves.

There are many other examples,  Provide road and airport infrastructure.  Maintain standing armed forces.  Etc...  Fund these through taxation.  It doesn't matter if you have no children, owned a car, didn't own a plane, or disagreed with the recent wars.  It is traditional to not ask those questions, to tax anyway.

One way of looking at money is as a prize, as a reward.  If you contribute to a society, you are rewarded by wealth.  Regulation by government to make labor safer, to lesson the division of wealth, anything, is viewed negatively.  The less regulation done, say many reds, the better off everyone is supposedly.

The other perspective is that of an economist.  Money is akin to a lubricant.  It exists to replace barter as a means of exchange and distribution.  Like a lubricant, it is possible to have to little or too much.  The government, as producer, consumer and distributor of money, has as part of its job to distribute money as needed.  Giving more than enough to some and nothing to others is not ideal, is not productive.

That is one difference between red and blue.  The red do not care about the uneven distribution.  They only care that they and those like them get as much as they can.  The blue (or many of them) would like to see the system inclusive, all folks contributing, to make the system itself work as well as possible.

I'd say there's a difference between earning one's money with the use of ones particular skills and talents and one receiving an equal portion of money distributed to them by government officials regardless of ones skills and talents. How many factors contribute to the difference's between people, peoples wages and peoples over all wealth/net worth?

OK, Mr. Blue, your job is to bring poor old PB up to par with me financially and emotionally. The issue with blues is that blues seem to actually believe that reds are STUPID. Who are going to be the ones in charge of redistributing our wealth and who are going to be the primary recipients of our wealth being redistributed? I'm thinking the blues because it makes sense knowing the blues and the way the blues only tend to think about themselves and what other blues want and so forth. I'm sorry to tell you this but the blues have actually earned some of their so-called stereotypes. Bob, there was a day when Henry Ford owned Ford Motors and walked around his plant and socialized and directly communicated with his employees. Well, all I have to say is that that time was a LONG, LONG time ago. Bob, I have never been able to go to a government bank and receive free government money just by asking a government banking official for more money. Have you? If you have, please tell me where the bank is located.

(09-18-2018, 08:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 07:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 07:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Government has a role in a democratic society for facilitating useful investments that private industry could never do well or equitably. An example is K-12 education. I know, I know --- manor lords and slave-owning planters did train their serfs and slaves ... to be serfs and slaves. We all benefit from mass literacy and competence with arithmetic. Who would pay -- except us all? Civics? The problem is that what might be good for us all (an electorate that can reject demagogues like Hugo Chavez or Donald Trump) is hard to link to any personal gain. We generally think democracy a good thing, as non-democracies almost invariably treat the masses badly. But if you are to rely upon employers to do the education for limited purposes -- serfs and slaves do not vote and must never be allowed to vote if they are to remain serfs and slaves.

There are many other examples,  Provide road and airport infrastructure.  Maintain standing armed forces.  Etc...  Fund these through taxation.  It doesn't matter if you have no children, owned a car, didn't own a plane, or disagreed with the recent wars.  It is traditional to not ask those questions, to tax anyway.

One way of looking at money is as a prize, as a reward.  If you contribute to a society, you are rewarded by wealth.  Regulation by government to make labor safer, to lesson the division of wealth, anything, is viewed negatively.  The less regulation done, say many reds, the better off everyone is supposedly.

The other perspective is that of an economist.  Money is akin to a lubricant.  It exists to replace barter as a means of exchange and distribution.  Like a lubricant, it is possible to have to little or too much.  The government, as producer, consumer and distributor of money, has as part of its job to distribute money as needed.  Giving more than enough to some and nothing to others is not ideal, is not productive.

That is one difference between red and blue.  The red do not care about the uneven distribution.  They only care that they and those like them get as much as they can.  The blue (or many of them) would like to see the system inclusive, all folks contributing, to make the system itself work as well as possible.

I'd say there's a difference between earning one's money with the use of ones particular skills and talents and one receiving an equal portion of money distributed to them by government officials regardless of ones skills and talents. How many factors contribute to the difference's between people, peoples wages and peoples over all wealth/net worth?

Even the Commies found that they had to reward people for productivity (piecework pay) as well as for working under necessarily harsh or dangerous conditions (such as mining), and different levels of skill. What the Commies rejected was the idea of people getting paid for simply owning the assets.

Quote:OK, Mr. Blue, your job is to bring poor old PB up to par with me financially and emotionally.

If I am not up to you financially that is my fault for career choices that did not pan out and failing to make the most out of some of the stopgap opportunities that I had.

Quote:The issue with blues is that blues seem to actually believe that reds are STUPID.

No, Red America is grossly hypocritical about claiming to love freedom yet accepting despotic management, crony capitalism, and pay-to-play government. Red America has far less ability to see through the bad character of political figures, which explains why they, and not Blue America, fell for Donald Trump.

Red America, and not Blue America, is responsible for Donald Trump, a dreadful person, an entrepreneur successful only at collecting rent and putting out schlock entertainment, and a politician so bad that he has torn at the fabric of American democracy.

Red America may be more adept at the nuts-and-bolts aspects of American life, but it is poor at establishing a morality other than rigid identity and harsh moralizing.
 

Quote:Who are going to be the ones in charge of redistributing our wealth and who are going to be the primary recipients of our wealth being redistributed? I'm thinking the blues because it makes sense knowing the blues and the way the blues only tend to think about themselves and what other blues want and so forth.

People associated with the color Red:



No, that was a horrible failure because of the body count. Anyone who thinks that simply redistributing the assets will solve all problems is a fool. Marxism-Leninism is a catastrophic failure, unable to innovate, poor at making production meet human desires, tending toward military expansion, violating human rights as badly as feudal lords and fascists... all Communism was really good at was blood-letting and repression.

A market economy rewards people for taking reasonable chances with assets -- their own and others -- developing useful skills, and putting others' needs above their immediate desires. A market society gives signals that it might be a good idea to learn how to do HVAC installation and repair instead of being a poet.

Quote:I'm sorry to tell you this but the blues have actually earned some of their so-called stereotypes. Bob, there was a day when Henry Ford owned Ford Motors and walked around his plant and socialized and directly communicated with his employees. Well, all I have to say is that that time was a LONG, LONG time ago.

Socialized with his workers? He was a harsh taskmaster! He held that people exist only to make people people already filthy rich even more filthy rich.

Quote:Bob, I have never been able to go to a government bank and receive free government money just by asking a government banking official for more money. Have you? If you have, please tell me where the bank is located.

The one government bank now in existence is the Federal Reserve Bank, and it exists to lend money to banks. There were lots of government banks, so to speak, after many commercial banks failed to become government owned during the 'receivership socialism' that Dubya blundered into. Obama did a fine job of selling off the 'socialized' banks to private investors.

(09-18-2018, 07:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 06:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Moderate progressive may well be the new majority within the Democratic party, a few blue states and most blue/green districts. You keep thinking & speaking as if  we live in a democracy when we actually live in a republic. Like I said, I could live without California. I assume that Californians would be given a choice of whether to stay American and remain with America or identify as a Californian and accept whatever system that a group of blues decide is best for all people who remain in California. I don't care if California goes back to building roads like our ancestors did back in good old days.

Well, you are the extremist.  For most people, the system as it is isn't bad enough to tear it down.  The Spiral of Violence is not escalating domestically.  The see saw has been switching back and forth regularly, so folks are used to living under really bad presidents from their perspective.  This is to be resolved by a political brouhaha, rather than old style Industrial Age violence.

The demographics and the issues will settle it, eventually.  Every year, the Red Boomers get older and the green issues become easier to see.  We just have to suffer through the red nonsense before the juggernaught eventually develops

It could take a while.  Cultures are incredibly stubborn.

Yes, I'm an extremist by cozy blue standards. If one were dirt poor and living in a tent without running water or electricity or plumbing and scrounging for money and food like they're doing in most blue cities these days, one might begin to think or believe that its time to start tearing it down right now within blue America.

(09-18-2018, 08:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say there's a difference between earning one's money with the use of ones particular skills and talents and one receiving an equal portion of money distributed to them by government officials regardless of ones skills and talents. How many factors contribute to the difference's between people, peoples wages and peoples over all wealth/net worth?

OK, Mr. Blue, your job is to bring poor old PB up to par with me financially and emotionally. The issue with blues is that blues seem to actually believe that reds are STUPID. Who are going to be the ones in charge of redistributing our wealth and who are going to be the primary recipients of our wealth being redistributed? I'm thinking the blues because it makes sense knowing the blues and the way the blues only tend to think about themselves and what other blues want and so forth. I'm sorry to tell you this but the blues have actually earned some of their so-called stereotypes. Bob, there was a day when Henry Ford owned Ford Motors and walked around his plant and socialized and directly communicated with his employees. Well, all I have to say is that that time was a LONG, LONG time ago. Bob, I have never been able to go to a government bank and receive free government money just by asking a government banking official for more money. Have you? If you have, please tell me where the bank is located.

I do not as much think reds are stupid as that their culture is into stereotypes.  At that, you are not that much a Trump Base sort of person, so you have different stereotypes.  The one you are spinning in the last paragraph shows all blues believing that all people should get the same amount.  False.  I may think that food, shelter, retirement and health care are promised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  I may have advocated that we honor what we signed.  But that is a long ways from saying that all men should get the same amount.  The above is not correct about me, is not correct about most blues, and is not believed to be true by most reds.

But of course you don't really listen to blues so I cannot correct your stereotypes.  Trying its seems futile.  I may ask other blues to listen, but if what you do is repeat what they know to be falsehoods, they will not listen long.  It would be silly.  I do believe that between demographics and increased evidence for environmental issues will eventually bring the vote more blue.  

I am not saying it will be easy or soon.  You are one of the people who has impressed me that cultures and stereotypes are incredibly stubborn, extremely slow to listen and change.  I also believe the spiral of violence not to be escalating, that the see saw is passing power back and forth, that people of both parties are getting tired of their establishments.  Thus, I have opinions very different from most extremists who anticipate violence and succession.  It is not happening.

And Pbower is correct.  There are currently no Federal banks save the Fed.  Your 'facts' are delusional too.

(09-18-2018, 06:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 05:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 03:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 03:15 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2018, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The scores in my horoscope aspect system are based on which presidential candidates have appealed to Americans up until now. Very idealistic types have not fared very well, and therefore some of the aspects which those types tend to have in their chart have neutral or negative scoring. What if some candidates like Beto can actually shift the preferences of Americans, and this is a long-term sea change? Then the scoring for those aspects might shift too. That would take generations, and meanwhile the scores might often be wrong.

I wouldn't bet on this happening, even if Beto wins over Cruz. If he runs for president, I would expect him to lose. But, I could be wrong!

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Actually, the shift should be a result of the 4T.  Then, and only then, can tradition be cast aside because tradition is the problem.  We don't have a wide path to a successful 4T, because the forces arrayed against it are still very strong, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.  FDR lead the country after decades of GOP business conservatives and rightwing Democrats like Woodrow Wilson ran the country for the plutocrats, yet he succeeded anyway.

In the above paragraph, I might use regeneracy instead of 4T.  I might use culture instead of tradition.  I would say the 100 Days and Pearl Harbor were the two key triggers of that double 4T.  FDR in many respects acted after the regeneracies, though he did much to get the country ready before Pearl Harbor.

In modern times it might be possible to shift the middle of the country enough away from the unraveling memes towards the blue.  It might be possible to form a progressive juggernaut.  There might come something to throw tradition aside, some form of catalyst or trigger.  Trump is just the guy to do it, or the middle of the country could reject Trump while still holding firm to the unraveling memes.  I am nervous that this might happen, that they blame Trump on Trump and try to elect someone like enough to Palin or Trump to draw their attention, but sane.  They might recognize their Establishment as pawns of the rich, and Trump as incompetent, yet still chase the dream of making the old values work.

But at any rate, it will happen eventually.  The problems are real enough and must eventually be solved.  I'm not sure it will happen any time soon.

What it means, is just that it won't be easy. The regressive memes (which dominated the unravelling) are still strong, and it will be scary. The two sides are lined up for a fight, which is what this 4T is about. The odds as I see it favor success for the blue. That is my cosmic prediction, but many demographers see the same thing. Moderate progressive is the majority; the system is stacked by the regressives to keep them in power. A 4T is when walls get busted. FDR and his forces busted them last time; it will happen again. I agree with Cameron Kasky. I look ahead 10 years and I see light.

By the way, looking again at Beto's score, his rise is a scary prospect, because there's no way he could EVER win the presidency. The Democrats must choose a potential winner, or things will get very tough for the blue team. The current leaders for the nomination cannot win the general election. Many observers agree. I hope Beto wins the Senate race, but I can't even predict that now. The main thing I see is that, as he gets older, he would exhaust himself. He would push too hard and lose his caution. If he wins, he must stay in the Senate and not run for president.

Moderate progressive may well be the new majority within the Democratic party, a few blue states and most blue/green  districts. You keep thinking & speaking as if  we live in a democracy when we actually live in a republic. Like I said, I could live without California. I assume that Californians would be given a choice of whether to stay American and remain with America or identify as a Californian and accept whatever system that a group of blues decide is best for all people who remain in California. I don't care if California goes back to building roads like our ancestors did back in good old days.

Reds have only won the popular vote for president once in the last 7 elections. Those are the elections in which the most people vote. That means that the moderate progressives are the majority in the country, not just the Democratic Party. So why did you say that?

The majority should decide things. The system has frustrated the will of the people for decades, not because the USA is a republic, but because it was designed to favor slave-holding states, which are the red states today along with the other more-rural states. So it still favors the slave-holding states today, and it enslaves us all.

The outdated electoral college favors those states, and so does the structure of the Senate. That is not a republic; it is a federal system designed at a time when it had to be designed that way to keep the slave states in the union. We also have an election system dominated by huge secret financial contributions by the wealthy. This was decided by the presidents chosen through the electoral college (and in Bush's case, by the Supreme Court), who determined the make-up of the Supreme Court that upholds this system. We also have a gerrymandered legislative election system thanks to the lack of civic engagement by young Obama supporters on Nov.2, 2010, and Republicans have instituted requirements that make it harder for poorer and non-white people to vote. None of that has anything to do with being a republic, which just means we vote for representatives.

People in red states think they are more free, but I don't think they are. They have more free enterprise, which only puts them at the mercy of the bosses. In blue states, not only in CA but in the others as well, the people benefit from a more equal society. Even Texas could turn blue in the next 10 or 20 years. Reds have nothing to fear from more regulation and taxes, since blues put these mostly upon the corporate CEOs that keep the people shackled. But in red states, the people are fooled that taxes, regulations and social programs are immoral supports for dependent people getting handouts. As work is made obsolete, this ideology that so dominates Classic Xer thinking and most Republican thinking whether led by Trump, Bush, Reagan or whoever, will become hopelessly outdated. Wealth redistribution from now on just means that the people deserve the benefits from the production by machines, not just a few wealthy investors and CEOs who own the machines.

I suspect demographics will give the majority an increasing advantage, soon enough I hope to overturn this minority-rule system. That will be the challenge of the next 10 years as the 4th turning takes its course. It may require packing the Court, since Trump is putting up a wall to progress there which is as impressive as the wall he hopes to build to keep Mexicans out.

Oh dear.  Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!  If Beto wins, he will surely try to ban BBQ in Texas!

(09-18-2018, 10:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 07:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 06:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Moderate progressive may well be the new majority within the Democratic party, a few blue states and most blue/green districts. You keep thinking & speaking as if  we live in a democracy when we actually live in a republic. Like I said, I could live without California. I assume that Californians would be given a choice of whether to stay American and remain with America or identify as a Californian and accept whatever system that a group of blues decide is best for all people who remain in California. I don't care if California goes back to building roads like our ancestors did back in good old days.

Well, you are the extremist.  For most people, the system as it is isn't bad enough to tear it down.  The Spiral of Violence is not escalating domestically.  The see saw has been switching back and forth regularly, so folks are used to living under really bad presidents from their perspective.  This is to be resolved by a political brouhaha, rather than old style Industrial Age violence.

The demographics and the issues will settle it, eventually.  Every year, the Red Boomers get older and the green issues become easier to see.  We just have to suffer through the red nonsense before the juggernaught eventually develops

It could take a while.  Cultures are incredibly stubborn.

Yes, I'm an extremist by cozy blue standards. If one were dirt poor and living in a tent without running water or electricity or plumbing and scrounging for money and food like they're doing in most blue cities these days, one might begin to think or believe that its time to start tearing it down right now within blue America.

Strawman.

I recognize that opportunity is grossly unequal in America, and most people must learn to make the best out of bad situations, like a job that one hates and offers few means of advancement within the organization. Millions of people hate the economic reality that they face.

Some people do that well. It is far harder than having advantages, but even having advantages implies that one knows how to use those. Maybe someone despises the community in which he lives and is unwilling to recognize the opportunity to get ahead where he is. Maybe one is so attached to the community in which he lives that he is unwilling to take any but the most perfect promotion to leave it. So one hates his job in fast-food work in some dreary hick town and refuses to commit himself to taking a managerial job in the business because he might get a job as an actuary in Chicago -- and the actuary job never materializes. Or one can't imagine leaving the rural utopia for a well-paying job as an actuary in Chicago. For that matter, many people who love the paradise climate and the scenery of the San Francisco Bay Area would never leave it for living less expensively in a place where the scenery is non-existent (northern rural Illinois) and the climate is an alternation between tropical heat in the summer and a Russian winter.

Or you decide between seeing the world or buying some vending machines. If you trade off a honeymoon in Paris for one in Pittsburgh. you might make so much money off the vending machines that you can take a yearly junket to just about anywhere you want. On the other hand, the vending machines might be decrepit boxes selling unattractive stuff for a low profit margin that maintenance costs devour, so you are out the money.

It is easy to believe that the people who rule America want most people to fail, to rely upon entertainment as a salve for jobs far below their spirits, and to recognize that Big Business will squash practically any small business that starts to show a profit that Big Business will make. The American tax structure favors giant, vertically-integrated firms instead of small businesses that have been more effective at creating jobs and family incomes. The business that Americans least admire (aside from landlords) is cable TV, which offers scores of channels that few people watch.

In the 3T, the system offered 'shopping' as entertainment and self-expression. Nobody believes that any more. Not one enclosed shopping mall has been built since 2006, and many of them have been demolished.

I know that the ideal person in Trump's America is someone who sports that over-broad "Happy to serve you!" smile while struggling to hold onto a job of mind-numbing, soul-crushing routine and is happy to share a decrepit trailer with several other working-poor people in a society that recognizes material indulgence as proof of one's worth as a human being. Most people either cannot develop well-honed skills or have the wrong skills to match what is needed at the time (and those needs can evaporate). So maybe we can have high-enough tariffs to bring back those glorious sweat-shops in which people are machines again as on the assembly line in which the Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) somehow does not fit because he is not a machine (Modern Times, 1936 -- you really ought to see it!)

Life is absurd, and Donald Trump is absurd as any political leader can be, unless the leader is "Adenoid Hynkel" (Charlie Chaplin again in The Great Dictator, and you also ought to see it. Chaplin plays a double role as a Jewish victim of "Der Phooey"... and I can imagine a remake in which some great comic figure  plays both Donald Trump and some devout Muslim (Turkish? Albanian? Bosniak?) who somehow turns the tables on "Deplorable Trash" in "Absurdistan".

(OK, Vaclav Havel mocked Communist Czechoslovakia as "Absurdistan", so I admit that I can't claim great literary creativity).

Do see The Great Dictator, which has become unusually and freakishly relevant to America since the election of D as in deplorable, J as in Judas, and T as in tyrant.

(09-18-2018, 08:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say there's a difference between earning one's money with the use of ones particular skills and talents and one receiving an equal portion of money distributed to them by government officials regardless of ones skills and talents. How many factors contribute to the difference's between people, peoples wages and peoples over all wealth/net worth?

Where on this earth is there an economy that provides anything like that? Maybe a monastery works that way … maybe.

This is your blind spot. You extrapolate social welfare support to some idealized equal distribution of wealth and assets. It isn't. What it most closely resembles is insurance, where some level of support is provided in the event of some negative event like illness or a positive event that needs support like childbirth. This merely removes uncertainty, which promotes entrepreneurialism, among other unexpected benefits.

What's expected of you? Pay your taxes, which will admittedly be higher than they are today. Do you get anything? Yes: healthcare, including things our insurance market doesn't want to provide, good roads, schools and other communal assets. Things you buy today are available for you to access at no additional cost. In some countries, lawyers are a social service, just like social workers.

No one's an island, and it's high time we quit pretending. Sharing the cost of things we all need is called SMART. Having everyone pay solo is truly DUMB.

(09-18-2018, 10:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I'm an extremist by cozy blue standards. If one were dirt poor and living in a tent without running water or electricity or plumbing and scrounging for money and food like they're doing in most blue cities these days, one might begin to think or believe that its time to start tearing it down right now within blue America.

I assume you mean the old industrial cities that were allowed to collapse so the GOP could hand out the assets to their cronies.  Those cities?  I have to assume you don't mean the cities that are the economic engine of the country.   There are plenty of those: Seattle Washington, San Jose California, Austin Texas, Boston Massachusetts, Atlanta Georgia, Miami Florida, Washington DC, Denver Colorado, the list is really long.

(09-19-2018, 03:28 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2018, 08:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say there's a difference between earning one's money with the use of ones particular skills and talents and one receiving an equal portion of money distributed to them by government officials regardless of ones skills and talents. How many factors contribute to the difference's between people, peoples wages and peoples over all wealth/net worth?

Where on this earth is there an economy that provides anything like that?  Maybe a monastery works that way … maybe.  

This is your blind spot.  You extrapolate social welfare support to some idealized equal distribution of wealth and assets.  It isn't.  What it most closely resembles is insurance, where some level of support is provided in the event of some negative event like illness or a positive event that needs support like childbirth.  This merely removes uncertainty, which promotes entrepreneurialism, among other unexpected benefits.

The ideal is that people use the social welfare system so that they can get their lives together, whether they ever were good or were not. In return for that effort I get disability payment and SNAP. What I want to do has nothing to do with disability. 

Quote:What's expected of you?  Pay your taxes, which will admittedly be higher than they are today.  Do you get anything?  Yes: healthcare, including things our insurance market doesn't want to provide, good roads, schools and other communal assets.  Things you buy today are available for you to access at no additional cost.  In some countries, lawyers are a social service, just like social workers.

Should I be able to do what I think I can, I will be a taxpayer much like Classic Xer. I will have no cause for complaint because the system will have made me a competent performer in a capitalist society.

Quote:No one's an island, and it's high time we quit pretending.  Sharing the cost of things we all need is called SMART.  Having everyone pay solo is truly DUMB.

So. the Luftwaffe destroyed your living space. Is it a good idea that someone takes you in for the duration? Sure.  There but for random chance go you.