Gavin McInnis on Baby Boomers

[Kinser79]

And why they are objectively terrible.

[Kinser79]

(05-21-2016, 02:04 PM)taramarie Wrote: You know, even though a person from that generation (Mark Bauerlein) called my generation "The Dumbest Generation" in his book a few years back, I really feel sorry for them for all the finger pointing and the blame game. I really distrust blame games. It does nothing. Focusing on what they have done wrong and ways to fix it, oh yes. But to go round blaming an entire generation...that is every single baby boomer...that is bullshit and ignorant. It would be the elites which would most likely be part of that generation. Blame the ones in power, not an entire generation. You cannot blame all for the actions of the few. When someone uses the term baby boomer they are lumping them all into that group to blame. I know some have a chip on their shoulder regarding baby boomers and it has been discussed why but get over it. This is reality and you can either sit there with your thumbs up your ass whining about how terrible boomers are and how they have farked up our future or you can band with my generation who is also panting for a revolution and figure out ways to fix what they have messed up.  Which will it be?

Since I'm not going to attempt to untoss your word salad let me say this.

Everything he's said about what boomers have done, was done by enough of them to make it a clear and distinct pattern. This is how "generaliztions" work. That you can find an exception to the generalization does not invalidate the generalization.

As for that revolution, I've seen what it appears Millenials have planned and if it is the Social Justice Utopia that is supposed to come I have absolutely no interest. I honestly don't think that our society can be fixed, we need to burn down everything that's been constructed since WW2 except those things built by the GIs we want to keep and start over from scratch.

I'm not the only Xer who has come to that conclusion.

[Danilynn]

there comes a point where it can't be fixed and is easier and more realistic to burn it down, knock it down and start over so that it does make sense, because eventually the damage is so great, like now. So I second the burn it down and start over.

[Eric the Green]

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-21-2016, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Born in the 1960's and grew up in the 1970's

[Galen]

(05-21-2016, 10:09 PM)Danilynn Wrote: there comes a point where it can't be fixed and is easier and more realistic to burn it down, knock it down and start over so that it does make sense, because eventually the damage is so great, like now. So I second the burn it down and start over.

The current system is going down and in general the Xers know this and they know who did it.  Saving it is not possible and so Generation X on the whole will not try.

[Galen]

(05-22-2016, 12:54 AM)taramarie Wrote: So, if they will not try it is up to the civics to do so huh? Pretty much sums up my frustration of the xers who i know of who like to whine but cannot be bothered doing anything about it. It is that lack of civic spirit in them that frustrates me. But least i now know what it is that is frustrating about them! Oh well, roll up sleeves fellow civics! We have a lot of work to do!

The one thing that will work, the free market, will never be permitted by the Boomers because it can't give them their Utopia.  The system hasn't broken down to the point where faith in the state has been totally destroyed.  Once that happens then something useful might be accomplished.  Here is a look into the future of the west if socialism is not ended.  Until this realization becomes more widespread don't expect Xers to do much of anything.

[Galen]

(05-22-2016, 01:28 AM)taramarie Wrote: When things are so bad reality gives a smack down i can only HOPE people wake up and fix the system PROPERLY. Whether that actually happens is another story. I will believe it when i see it. I will watch this video now.

One can only hope.  One of the things I like about Molyneux is that he shows his references.

[Kinser79]

(05-22-2016, 01:22 AM)taramarie Wrote: Should be an interesting future as i hear the majority of American millies are leaning more towards socialism. Should be interesting how they take this news.

In general the American Millie conception of what socialism is "free health care", "free college", "free this" and "free that". What they don't step back and realize, largely because their Boomer parents never taught them--nothing is actually free. Those of us who are in X and older portions of millies have experience with GIs and Older Xers the Lost know that there is no such thing as free. Things have to be paid for and there are very few ways to actually pay for those things.

1. Is making things people want to get money, and then tax that money that has been earned.
2. Taxing imported goods.
3. Manipulating the currency.

Since the status quo is to not tax imported goods, and since Americans have pursued a free trade policy and cannot compete against those who are paid a bowl of rice a day making things and selling them to others is out too. For the US this leaves manipulating currency. This is of course fine if you hold reserve currency status, but if you do it too much you will lose that reserve status--all the checks written to pay for all those "free goodies" come due all at once and the country resorts to massive inflation to discharge its debts with inflated paper.

The result of course in countries who don't have reserve status is Venezuela. Chavez's left wing populism worked fine as long as oil prices were high--they dropped, they didn't have the dollars coming in to cover the dollars going out and chaos ensued.

As for agreeing on a vision, I don't think everyone in a country ever will ever agree on such a vision. That being said I'll settle for some core basic things.

1. Everyone has the right to do, say and be anything thing they want within the boundaries of reasonable laws.
2. There is no free anything--welfare is gone completely. If non-state entities want to run charities that is fine.
3. There will be tariffs to protect domestic industry. It does not matter if foreign goods are better, the country has an interest in having industries of its own, you know in-case-shit.
4. The economy will be more geared toward the importation of raw materials and export of finished goods than the import of finished goods and the export of raw materials.
5. The state has absolute control over who can enter the country. Naturally anyone who wants to leave, well I hope the door doesn't hit them in the ass on the way out.
6. An end to being policeman of the world. If countries want us to defend them...fine...they're paying for the occupation. If you want to be a colony you'll get treated like one.

In short going back to precisely the program that the US ran until just after WW2 and made the US the Largest Economy, the Largest Trading Country and the largest military power in the world.

[Galen]

(05-22-2016, 01:49 AM)taramarie Wrote: Electricity is free over there wtf! How do they survive over there like that! Yeah if it is available all the time no wonder it is being abused. If things are free over there it is snatch and grab. That is not sustainable as resources are not ever lasting. Great video, Galen. I will subscribe to this channel. Still watching.

Molyneux says many politically incorrect things but he backs them up with data.  He is an Xer of about my vintage and his attitude is not uncommon.  You might want watch his stuff on basic philosophy because you will find epistemology to be very useful in figuring out what is real.

[Galen]

(05-22-2016, 01:41 AM)taramarie Wrote: How the f did they think they could cope with "free healthcare?" Here in NZ it is paid through taxes. Well a portion of it anyway. Ridiculous. If there is no funding, nothing being paid for (as money does not appear out of nowhere unfortunately) no wonder everything has collapsed. No wonder there is no quality within healthcare as they cannot afford for it!

How does anyone think anything is free?  It is because they are completely divorced from reality.  Also keep in mind there is an element of envy which also fuels a desire for more government.  This is what the hippies were truly all about.  Actually, playdud and pbrower think that it does which in the case of the Fed is true but there are nasty consequences.

Keep in mind that when they speak of single payer what they really mean is government run.  If you want to know how that works out look up the VA scandals in the US.

[Kinser79]

(05-22-2016, 02:00 AM)taramarie Wrote: This is very interesting. Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, that is true. Boomers never taught us nothing is free. We lived in a bubble during the 90s.

In all honesty most children are oblivious to the world not directly in front of them. That isn't a generational problem for Millies as far as the 1990s are concerned. It would have happened no matter the archetype the generation takes on.

Quote: The 2000's were kind of a smack in the face but it has not knocked some sense into my generation as of yet.

To be honest I don't think that it has knocked sense into the Boomers either. Xers just persevered like Nomads do.

Quote: I am one of the ones who knows nothing is free.

Then you're already smarter than at least half your generation already.

Quote:But then again, i am not an American millennial. If what you have noted down is what the US economy was running on just after ww2 and it worked, then that is what it should go back to.

Just after WW2 large portions of Europe and Asia were devastated meaning that the majority of all industrial production took place in one of two places, the USA and the USSR. This was how they both became super powers even if the USSR had to re-industrialize after the war, but the salvaged enough of what they had previously built to keep the bullets, tanks and steel coming. The USSR unfortunately was never very good at delivering consumer goods and part of that is the problem of long term national economic planning, the rest was a result of bureaucratic inefficiencies built into the any state Russians will create.

That being said, such a program has run for most of the history of the US from 1776 to about 1975-77. Carter was the first to seek to abandon protectionist tariffs entirely (a course only partially reversed by Reagan, but reinstated in full under Clinton). As such there has been a very long stagnation of wages in comparison to productivity.

It should also be noted that after 1964 the Democrats pushed for and passed major changes in immigration laws bringing in cheaper labor, and created the American Welfare state which has had disastrous consequences for the family structure (not to mention creates a cycle of dependency on the state).

In short welfare-stateism kills economic libidos.

It is interesting to note that Gavin McInnis like myself has a Punk Rock background.

[It should be interesting to note that the Democrats also tend to claim that the Republicans generally, and Trump in particular, are 'racist' because they say that the poor shouldn't seek more and more welfare but should instead seek out work. To that extent I agree that blacks should prefer work to welfare, however, the donor class of the GOP largely also wants cheap labor which prices native born Americans, particularly blacks, out of the market for the low skill, low education, low pay jobs that are the first rung on familial success. In short well meaning liberals managed to destroy the black middle class something the Klan even at the height of its powers couldn't accomplish.]

Quote: We totally agree on Americans never agreeing on a vision. I do not think that will ever happen and if anything, it just divides people further and creates a hostile environment. Even inclusion of others having more rights is pissing people off.

Americans have never had the same vision as to what they want--we are a really huge country (fourth in area behind Russia, Canada, and China) with a huge population (we're third behind China and India). We work best when when we operate the way the country intended with the Federal government taking a very small role in daily life (Foreign affairs, foreign trade, and insuring everyone has basic human rights--stuff states have proved not very good at and individuals can't do themselves) with the state and local governments taking the bulk of the responsibility for day to day governance.

That is what is traditionally American and how our country operates best. If New York State or California want to try and create some sort of PC Utopia I don't have to live in New York State or California...I'll be perfectly fine here in Florida. Though I would like to move back to the Midwest but the industry would have to come back first, otherwise there are no customers for the restaurant I've been wanting to start.

[Galen]

(05-22-2016, 01:48 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: In short going back to precisely the program that the US ran until just after WW2 and made the US the Largest Economy, the Largest Trading Country and the largest military power in the world.

The Classical Liberals weren't perfect but they are vastly superior to what is called liberal now.

I am going to correct you about saying that the US has free trade and it doesn't.  It doesn't take agreements thousands of pages long to get free trade.  If you want to get rid of the income tax then a much smaller government and revenue tariff is one of the better ways to go about it.

[Kinser79]

(05-22-2016, 03:41 AM)Galen Wrote: The Classical Liberals weren't perfect but they are vastly superior to what is called liberal now.

It is interesting you bring up Classical Liberalism. More and more it seems like I'm being pulled into that direction.

Quote:I am going to correct you about saying that the US has free trade and it doesn't.

I think that is mostly a linguistic quibble much like how the Regressive Left is typically called liberal when they have absolutely nothing to do with Liberalism (in the classical sense) and much more to do with psuedo-Marxist and idealistic socialism.

Quote:  It doesn't take agreements thousands of pages long to get free trade.  If you want to get rid of the income tax then a much smaller government and revenue tariff is one of the better ways to go about it.

Quite true. It isn't fair trade either. NAFTA, CAFTA and TPP really are signing over economic sovereignty for cheap imported goods.

As for the size of government, I would say it is the federal government that must be smaller. State Governments are limited in their size by more natural means and an inability to run up sovereign debt.

[Galen]

(05-22-2016, 03:43 AM)taramarie Wrote: True. It is just ignorance. Everything is run on money. Things have to be paid for for the resources, creation and service. Money has to come from somewhere and it is through taxes for many places at least. As for hippies I am rather ignorant on that topic. I know they were older SJWs and were about internal exploration whatever the hell that meant to them. They say it was a way to escape.

Money also forms the basis for economic calculation which is how a market allocates resources.  Since money is one half of every transaction it is best that money itself arises out of the free market.  Here is a video that describes what Mises wrote about in 1920.





As for the hippies they were trying to stay out of Vietnam, get stoned and laid while claiming the moral high ground.  They also discovered one true thing about being a revolutionary and that is that the pay sucks.  This fueled an envy of anyone who had anything they didn't have.

[Galen]

(05-22-2016, 03:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 03:41 AM)Galen Wrote: The Classical Liberals weren't perfect but they are vastly superior to what is called liberal now.

It is interesting you bring up Classical Liberalism.  More and more it seems like I'm being pulled into that direction.

You have been digging around in history enough to see that Classical Liberalism actually worked.

(05-22-2016, 03:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Quite true.  It isn't fair trade either.  NAFTA, CAFTA and TPP really are signing over economic sovereignty for cheap imported goods.

I completely agree with you on this point.

(05-22-2016, 03:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for the size of government, I would say it is the federal government that must be smaller.  State Governments are limited in their size by more natural means and an inability to run up sovereign debt.

The several states could create money but it would have to gold coin and not paper.  This provision of the Constitution exists because of the experience with states trying to print their way out debt which ended badly after the American Revolution.  The Constitution is best understood as a free trade and mutual defense pact.

On the whole you are correct about the limitations the state governments would be under.

[Kinser79]

(05-22-2016, 04:26 AM)Galen Wrote: You have been digging around in history enough to see that Classical Liberalism actually worked.

And more importantly can be applied to current material conditions. If I had to provide a label I'd say I'm drifting toward Classical Liberalism with a strong dose of Federalism and Cultural Libertarianism mixed in.

Quote:The several states could create money but it would have to gold coin and not paper.  This provision of the Constitution exists because of the experience with states trying to print their way out debt which ended badly after the American Revolution.

Actually Article I, Section 10 limits the states to Gold or Silver coin, but Article I, Section 8 grants Congress power to coin money but doesn't further define what money is. As such the coining of money through means other than gold or silver (IE paper or copper coins or token coinage--like most change in the US currently) is strictly limited to the Federal Government.

I would argue that Art I, Sec 10 limits the States to either using gold and silver in the payment of debts or any other thing that Congress makes legal tender (in the case of the US Federal Reserve Notes and the token fractional coinage). So long as both sections are in place, or something like them (in say a different constitution) sovereign debt is impossible to the states, but not impossible for the federal government.

Naturally of course if one were to introduce hard money to the US again there would likely need to be federal banking regulations to control the backing in specie of the notes printed privately. And I'd be perfectly fine with a bimetallic standard provided that gold doesn't overpower silver, in which case it should be only gold. I believe that exchange ratios between gold and silver have changed a bit from the 16:1 ratio of the late 18th century.

 

Quote: The Constitution is best understood as a free trade and mutual defense pact.

You'll get no argument from me there. I've long thought that the country really is too large even with modern communication methods to attempt to run it in a unitary fashion. Not because of the size of our area, but rather our population. Unlike the Chinese I don't think Americans think on a civilization time line or frame of mind. That being said the Chinese are pretty much unique in having the longest running civilization. The west has abrupt points of starting and stopping and today's Europeans are clearly not Romans.

Quote:On the whole you are correct about the limitations the state governments would be under.

Indeed as citizenship is based on the entirety of the US, with the free movement of people across state boundaries, should some states choose to conduct insane experiments people can vote with their feet if the ballot box proves ineffective.

[Galen]

(05-22-2016, 04:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 04:26 AM)Galen Wrote: You have been digging around in history enough to see that Classical Liberalism actually worked.

And more importantly can be applied to current material conditions.  If I had to provide a label I'd say I'm drifting toward Classical Liberalism with a strong dose of Federalism and Cultural Libertarianism mixed in.

Fair enough.  You definitely aren't a member of the cult of the omnipotent state.

[Galen]

(05-22-2016, 04:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Actually Article I, Section 10 limits the states to Gold or Silver coin, but Article I, Section 8 grants Congress power to coin money but doesn't further define what money is.  As such the coining of money through means other than gold or silver (IE paper or copper coins or token coinage--like most change in the US currently) is strictly limited to the Federal Government.

I would argue that Art I, Sec 10 limits the States to either using gold and silver in the payment of debts or any other thing that Congress makes legal tender (in the case of the US Federal Reserve Notes and the token fractional coinage).  So long as both sections are in place, or something like them (in say a different constitution) sovereign debt is impossible to the states, but not impossible for the federal government.

Naturally of course if one were to introduce hard money to the US again there would likely need to be federal banking regulations to control the backing in specie of the notes printed privately.  And I'd be perfectly fine with a bimetallic standard provided that gold doesn't overpower silver, in which case it should be only gold.  I believe that exchange ratios between gold and silver have changed a bit from the 16:1 ratio of the late 18th century.

Two things about coining money.  Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to coin money which implies a commodity money like gold or silver particularly in light of section 10.  I also tend to interpret the grants of power as narrowly as possible in light of the Tenth Amendment and the Federalist Papers.  One of the problems with most Supreme Court rulings is that they tend to create powers that were never explicitly granted to Congress.

The problem with bimetallism in the nineteenth century were the fixed ratio set by Congress.  Allowing the market to set the ratio would not have this problem because Gresham's Law does not apply in a free market condition.  There is a surprising amount of gold and silver coin already out in the world but people tend to use it as a hedge against inflation since the only thing the Fed knows how to do is print.  It seems likely that those coins would start coming back into circulation rather quickly.

You might want to read Murrray Rothbard's History of Money and Banking.  (Just click on the link) It will give you considerable insight into why the Constitution handles money the way it does.

[Danilynn]

(05-22-2016, 12:54 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 12:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 10:09 PM)Danilynn Wrote: there comes a point where it can't be fixed and is easier and more realistic to burn it down, knock it down and start over so that it does make sense, because eventually the damage is so great, like now. So I second the burn it down and start over.

The current system is going down and in general the Xers know this and they know who did it.  Saving it is not possible and so Generation X on the whole will not try.

So, if they will not try it is up to the civics to do so huh? Pretty much sums up my frustration of the xers who i know of who like to whine but cannot be bothered doing anything about it. It is that lack of civic spirit in them that frustrates me. But least i now know what it is that is frustrating about them! Oh well, roll up sleeves fellow civics! We have a lot of work to do!

It's not that we won't or can't. But we are a small generation in comparison to the boomers and millies, realistically, our votes mean nothing in the grand scheme of things when stacked up against the mega generations on either side of us.

Gen. X was written off a long time ago, ergo, at this point, I and so many other gen X I know have resorted to almost a Christopher Titus stand up comedy of mindset....he has a line that says, no wait, this will be good. In reference to a kid sticking a fork in a light socket. So watching this is sort of our entertainment, stress, and vindication all in one.

It's not so much that I want to see it burn, so much as it seems inevitable. And the foreplay is tedious, do it already so we can rebuild it.

Every point Kinser made when saying what he wanted to see I can second.

Most especially the welfare thing. Charities at a local level not affiliated with the government do it a lot better and with much more dignity and compassion and less waste than what the government does. I have been involved in numerous charities in my little city. My church bought out an acre of land in conjunction with other churches across all denominations of Christianity and planted with all the youth groups a garden. All the food goes to the food banks, or did. Until the government stepped in and said that we couldn't give that out because it was "unchecked food of unknown origin", same with the safely preserved and processed deer meat, and safely preserved produce from other people's surplus out of small family backyard gardens.

So now, each youth group, just delivers this to people who used to come to the pantry. We still have it, but none of what we can give is really nutritious stuff. It is mostly canned and boxed crap that we are allowed to give out. So yet again, gen x, the main bulk of the people who run this little pantry had to come up with a way to get food to people to "rich" to get food stamps, but too poor to actually buy their food, mainly seniors and millies just starting out, and a few families.

We've been experimenting with a time bank style barter system to help people in our church. people who need say a plumber, but can't pay, donate however much time the plumber spends doing their work to someone else who needs it. We have seniors who donate it back in the form of driving youth groups around to donate food to our secret list of who needs the garden and deer meat and fresh caught fish. Or babysitting for the sweet young couple who's baby is sick and they need to work, and daycare is out of the question because of an ear ache.

My town is black, white and Mexican. And between the 12 churches of varying size, we have kept this place from falling into oblivion. Our town is actually re-vitalizing slowly in areas. But it has taken the stubborn, tattooed, weird hair-colored gen x that didn't play well with others to do it after infiltrating the church ladies and men's groups in numbers high enough to break it from social hour gossip society to one of action.

People come to us way before they go to government agencies after say, a house fire, an unexpected death with funeral costs. The reason why is because we fix it. We scout around and organize whatever needs doing and see that it gets done, locally. Our food bank is never hurting because of the way we run it. We have the government appeased with how it appears, and the community taken care of by how it actually gets done. We even have a totally free clothes bank, and furniture stored all over in everyone's sheds, barns, and garages, that is free for people truly in need after disaster. And here's the kicker, the government nearly killed our food pantry, for the sin of growing fresh food and giving it away to people who are hungry.