Donald Trump and Dictatorial Taste

[beechnut79]

(03-20-2017, 09:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-18-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Eric, (insult redacted), but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric (insult redacted) is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.

One can only have a crony capitalist world if the government is big enough for politicians to dish out favors for their friends in big business.  Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.  Government is not.

Not if Big Business has taken over the state, and not if Big Business has deputized Big Business to control the People.  Feudalism, one of the old forms of tyranny, implies a weak state but one in which the manorial lord has all power over the serf. One might be safe from the caprice of the King who is simply the biggest landowner in the country only to be under the rule of some lord who has the power of life and death over one. If one is under the absolute power of such a lord one has no freedom. "Obey or die" is not freedom.

Libertarianism is a utopian dream. There is not and has never been a libertarian state; there is no convincing evidence that a libertarian society would not turn into a new form of feudalism.

Did any of you happen to watch or listen to the expose on 60 Minutes last night about the abuse of the visa program by which American workers were not only displaced by foreign ones, but were also required to train their replacements in order to qualify for any severance? Truly shocking. No wonder we are in a much worse national malaise than during the fabled one of the Carter years!

[beechnut79]

(03-20-2017, 03:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 09:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-18-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote: I find it ironic that Eric (insult redacted) is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.

One can only have a crony capitalist world if the government is big enough for politicians to dish out favors for their friends in big business.  Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.  Government is not.

Not if Big Business has taken over the state, and not if Big Business has deputized Big Business to control the People.  Feudalism, one of the old forms of tyranny, implies a weak state but one in which the manorial lord has all power over the serf. One might be safe from the caprice of the King who is simply the biggest landowner in the country only to be under the rule of some lord who has the power of life and death over one. If one is under the absolute power of such a lord one has no freedom. "Obey or die" is not freedom.

Libertarianism is a utopian dream. There is not and has never been a libertarian state; there is no convincing evidence that a libertarian society would not turn into a new form of feudalism.

Big business doesn't have to "take over the state", monopolies are created by the state.  In the modern format mostly through regulatory capture--but prior to that things were a little more direct.  As for businesses getting big to start with--well that's capitalism for you.  Expand or die.

As to Libertarianism I'll let the Libertarians answer for that, you know considering I'm not a Libertarian.

This has been achieved over the past three decades or so mostly by the merger and buyout mania which made the victors bigger and bigger, creating a state of what is often referred to as oligopoly, a condition where there are only a few large sellers for a given product. The next step below total monopoly. This does not create a very stabilizing mood for the country and society.

[Galen]

(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

It would be helpful if you provided an example of this happening.  I have yet to find a historical example of this process.

[Odin]

(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history? Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable. Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos. Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been. It is of course a Republic.

The US is both a democracy and a republic, they are not mutually conflicting terms. The whole "we are a republic, not a democracy" talking point comes from artificially narrow definition of democracy and outright intellectual dishonestly.

Modern liberal democracies have these things called rights which exist exactly to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history? Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable. Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos. Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been. It is of course a Republic.

As for Oligarchy, it is more or less the natural state for mankind. There is a class that rules and a class that is ruled. But in no case has there ever been such a class, ruled or ruling that was frozen in stasis without the intervention of the state

(03-20-2017, 03:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business doesn't have to "take over the state", monopolies are created by the state.  In the modern format mostly through regulatory capture--but prior to that things were a little more direct.  As for businesses getting big to start with--well that's capitalism for you.  Expand or die.

As to Libertarianism I'll let the Libertarians answer for that, you know considering I'm not a Libertarian.

You think all those Gilded Age monopolies and trusts were created by the state? It took state power in order to break up those monopolies.

[Odin]

(03-20-2017, 03:30 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: This has been achieved over the past three decades or so mostly by the merger and buyout mania which made the victors bigger and bigger, creating a state of what is often referred to as oligopoly, a condition where there are only a few large sellers for a given product. The next step below total monopoly. This does not create a very stabilizing mood for the country and society.

Our anti-trust laws have not been strongly enforced for decades, it's time for a new era of trust-busting.

[Odin]

(03-20-2017, 03:30 PM)Galen Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

It would be helpful if you provided an example of this happening.  I have yet to find a historical example of this process.

During the Gilded Age many state governments were pretty much under the thumb of corporate interests.

[Kinser79]

(03-20-2017, 05:19 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history?  Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable.  Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos.  Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been.  It is of course a Republic.

The US is both a democracy and a republic, they are not mutually conflicting terms. The whole "we are a republic, not a democracy" talking point comes from artificially narrow definition of democracy and outright intellectual dishonestly.

Modern liberal democracies have these things called rights which exist exactly to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history?  Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable.  Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos.  Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been.  It is of course a Republic.

As for Oligarchy, it is more or less the natural state for mankind.  There is a class that rules and a class that is ruled.  But in no case has there ever been such a class, ruled or ruling that was frozen in stasis without the intervention of the state

(03-20-2017, 03:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business doesn't have to "take over the state", monopolies are created by the state.  In the modern format mostly through regulatory capture--but prior to that things were a little more direct.  As for businesses getting big to start with--well that's capitalism for you.  Expand or die.

As to Libertarianism I'll let the Libertarians answer for that, you know considering I'm not a Libertarian.

You think all those Gilded Age monopolies and trusts were created by the state? It took state power in order to break up those monopolies.

1.  The Founders feared democracy and rightly so.  However, that does not preclude Republics from having democratic institutions.  However the US is not now, nor ever has been a democracy.

2.  Institutions that prohibit the tyanny of the majority usually indicate that the state in question is a Republic which is what most of your "modern democracies" actually are.

3.  Gilded Age Monopolies and Trusts were created by the state because on the federal level there was no laws to prevent their formation.  Capitalism requires businesses to expand or die, therefore they expand to their maximum possible extent.

At most a state that is hostile to monopoly formation can prevent them from happening, and break them up hen they do (See Sherman Anti-Trust act), but in no case has regulation of industry prevented the formation of monopolies--in most cases it has increased monopoly and oligopoly in industries through regulatory capture.

Also Odin you've not answered my question.

[Eric the Green]

(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-17-2017, 02:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-16-2017, 12:05 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(03-16-2017, 11:10 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Galen Wrote: I never thought of it that way but your right.  Should serve as an object lesson as to why governments need to be kept small.

Yeah, except for the small detail that I enjoy breathing free air.  Reducing pollution is one of those "externalities" that the free market isn't very good at handling.

For the sake of argument, this could probably be handled by common law as well, and was well into the 20th century.  Injunctions stemming from personal injury claims were actually far stricter than later statutory rules.  Part of the reasoning behind them was to protect corporations from nuisance lawsuits in the interests of development.

Which is what injunctions generally do; protect corporations, not the people.

Eric, I know you're an ignoramus, but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

You classical liberals seem to like injunctions. How about this one?





Or maybe you prefer this one:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Pullman-Strike

To hell with your stupid injunctions and "common law." We had NO protection against greedy pollution until Earth Day, the Clean Air and Water Acts and the EPA. Drump just wants to allow the greedy bosses to pollute as much as they want. SomeGuy, Kinser and Galen don't give a tinker's damn whether they live in a bleepin' garbage dump or not. They think it's better for the economy to live in a garbage dump. I don't think so. Garbage does not produce for the economy. Poison is not good for it either. Disease is not good for the economy. Climate change is ruining it. SomeGuy, Galen and Kinser haven't the foggiest notion that you need an environment in order to have an economy. They don't live on Planet Earth; they live in the Twilight Zone.

[Kinser79]

(03-20-2017, 05:25 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 03:30 PM)Galen Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

It would be helpful if you provided an example of this happening.  I have yet to find a historical example of this process.

During the Gilded Age many state governments were pretty much under the thumb of corporate interests.

That doesn't provide a historical example of private businesses setting themselves up as a state.  It merely indicates that politicians can be bought and sold.  Which isn't all that surprising really.  All men have a price.

[Galen]

(03-20-2017, 05:53 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 05:25 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 03:30 PM)Galen Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

It would be helpful if you provided an example of this happening.  I have yet to find a historical example of this process.

During the Gilded Age many state governments were pretty much under the thumb of corporate interests.

That doesn't provide a historical example of private businesses setting themselves up as a state.  It merely indicates that politicians can be bought and sold.  Which isn't all that surprising really.  All men have a price.

One other thing the Odin doesn't do is look at what happened to all the attempts the set up monopolies and trusts in the late nineteenth century.  Under laissez faire they died horrible twitching deaths for the most part.  None of them ever succeeded in their intended goal of controlling an industry.

[Odin]

See, I knew it was pointless trying to reason with you wackos.

[Galen]

(03-21-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote: See, I knew it was pointless trying to reason with you wackos.

I suggest that you spend some time with the work of Gabriel Kolko.  He was not even close to being a libertarian.

[pbrower2a]

More bad taste, also by a murderous tyrant:



Hermann Göring.
(Ridiculously small print for his name, illustrating the pettiness of his personality. Kleptocrat, serial mass murderer, and of course a Hitler crony). A dagger? Can you imagine FDR or Churchill with one of those?  



Functionally much in the spirit of the Taj Mahal, built to partially glorify the man but satisfy the sentimental tastes of his wife (it's named after his Swedish-born wife), it is intended to awe any visitor. Goering, infamous as a serial-killer by remote control as Gestapo boss and head of the Luftwaffe (for which he commissioned brutal pseudo-medical experiments upon helpless inmates in Nazi concentration camps) was also a serial-killer... of deer, as shown by the rich collection of antlers and by one of his official titles as Jagdmeister (Master of the Hunt).



The buildings have been destroyed, but this is no ordinary hunting lodge. It is safe to believe that he killed more prey in the form of political prisoners, inmates of concentration camps, and helpless people exposed to his murderous Blitz from Britain to Poland and Greece, than deer. Because it is not  a color image, I can hardly guess at the level of gilding.  I can only imagine what sorts of stag parties could have been held here... as Nazism was basically a bad boy's club.

His wife died young (and regrettably it was she and not this monstrous sociopath who died young) and as with the Taj Mahal his residence became a veritable shrine for his wife. Unlike the palace in Agra, this one got destroyed in World War II. Nothing to mourn, all in all.

[pbrower2a]

more here involving the fascist pig:



The reference is not solely to his eating habits and his obesity.

[Warren Dew]

(03-14-2017, 03:10 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Good God, who paints their walls yellow!?! 

That was my thought.  Makes the gold plate look good.

[pbrower2a]

(03-14-2017, 01:33 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: You know what else is tacky?  Envy. 

Except for Donald Trump, the people that I have excoriated for bad taste are also horrible people by the standards of Donald Trump. Except for Goering, those rulers have bled their people and bought expensive schlock. Goering simply stole his; even if he got excellent stuff that belonged to Polish nobility or to the Rothschild banking family, he displayed it badly. They have impoverished the people that they ruled and terrorized. I have deliberately avoided discussing castles from antiquity that a long-standing royal family might have inherited from antiquity. If your family is the House of Orange  or the Japanese imperial family, or would be Doge of Venice if there were still the aristocratic Republic of Venice, then you probably hold those ugly displays of come-from-nowhere tyrants or kleptocrats in contempt for their vulgarity for much the same reasons as I do.
 
Waste and excess are pitiable and contemptible.  It is safe to assume that nobody gets rich by being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I would not find 10 Downing intimidating. Margaret Thatcher, very much a middle-class person, would not find it too rich for her tastes. Neither would a union official who actually spent time in a mine or foundry and represents miners or foundry workers.  That's one reason the British political  system works. Note well that Goering, Marcos, Ceausescu, Yanukovych, and Satan Hussein all fell. Tito did live a long and charmed life... but his system did not long survive him. They all bought over-bloated Kitsch, and as someone else said, "it won't hold up well". Neither did the rulers.

Sure, we can all say how we would use the proceeds. I wouldn't buy stuff that says "I am on the same level as mobsters and tyrants". Of course I prefer 10 Downing Street to those ugly displays -- probably because I really know people who have spent much of their lives working in factories. If you are Labour PM you have no desire to intimidate people who really have been blue-collar workers much of their lives. If you are a Tory  PM you have no desire to intimidate owners of small businesses who might be an important part of .the constituency.

Maybe it is a pointless exercise to say what one would do if one got fantastically rich without really trying. I'd invest most of it , which is the least harmful way of handling wealth possible. Plant and equipment create jobs. Maybe endowing a university (Vanderbilt, Stanford), libraries seemingly everywhere (Carnegie), or setting up a medical research facility (Howard Hughes) would be my style.

Maybe I read too much into Donald Trump for his vulgarity. Do I really know how Bill Gates or Warren Buffett live? Maybe not.

Does anybody want to see the digs of Emperor Bokassa?

[Eric the Green]

Roy Rigordaeva:
Why is it they all use the same interior decorator ?

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-10-2017, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Roy Rigordaeva:
Why is it they all use the same interior decorator ?

What I want to know, are any of chairs solid gold?  Gold plating looks nice but it's  just so faux wrt actual value.

[Warren Dew]

(04-10-2017, 04:17 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-10-2017, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Roy Rigordaeva:
Why is it they all use the same interior decorator ?

What I want to know, are any of chairs solid gold?  Gold plating looks nice but it's  just so faux wrt actual value.

I wonder if the gold leaf reduces the life cycle cost.  Wood has to be polished; gold presumably only needs dusting.

[pbrower2a]

A good place for a discussion of Kitsch, a commonplace perquisite of cruel and kleptocratic regimes:


http://katiejbates.blogspot.com/2006/12/...ch-in.html