Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[pbrower2a]

The only Ayn Rand novel that I found reasonable and readable was Anthem, which could serve as a reasonable sequel to Orwell's 1984. Assertion of Self is the only possible defeat of a political order that subordinates all human desire to some Moloch of a social order.   (I would have a more radical solution to the dystopia of 1984: replacement of the corrupt language so that people could think and feel again. But that is another story. A revival of reconstructed "Vulgar Latin" would be a good choice.

Maybe Taramarie would suggest Maori.

...Nobody is able to give a 100-page filibuster of quasi-philosophical drivel, as one of Rand's characters does. That defies the principle of realism necessary in good fiction.

[Mikebert]

(08-18-2016, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

This may be true in the future, even the near future, but it's not true now.  We have two parties consisting of illogical coalitions, and the fact that the GOP is hitting the wall first doesn't make the Dems any less at risk.  So the Republican Party fractures, and then what?  I believe that the successor has to embrace the money, and bid adieu to the rest, preferring that to the exact opposite.  If the money stays, they will moderate all the RW nonsense and draw the UMC out of the Democratic Party.  If the money leaves, the GOP will become the old Democratic Party of the late 19th century.  They'll do better with the money, so that's what I expect.

That leaves the Dems with a coalition of niche special interests that tend to make demands on the party but fail to unite around any issues not their own.  In the current environment, the system will only support two major parties.  Money can fend for itself.  What about the herd-of-cats party?

There is a historical precedent of corporate money losing their party.  It was in 1854 when the Whigs collapsed.   It is unlikely that corporations will move to the Dems (this would be like the Whigs joining the Dems and agreeing to ignore slavery).  Republican and Democratic elites do not agree with each other and distrust each other; they are not going to join forces, even though they have common economic interests.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-18-2016, 10:54 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I may come across as being a lot like Reagan or very Reagan esque . However, Reagan wasn't the one who inspired me to become politically active and begin voting. The one who actually inspired me to become active and begin to vote was Ross Perot. I'm not a follower of Reagan in the way liberals often say that I am, portray me a being and come across to me as believing. I liked him as President and I view him as  the best president that I've seen during my life so far. But that it, I have no significant value placed on him. As I recall, Reagan was a transplanted Midwesterner like myself.

I'll confess I'm not the best at distinguishing between the various major conservative unraveling figures.  There is a saying that all sheep look alike, except to shepherds and other sheep.  I've been calling the base ideas of the unravelling the 'Reagan Memes'.  If you can suggest another phrase that might get the same idea across, I might consider.  Meanwhile, it has been an effective enough phrase to get the idea across, and Reagan was an important figure in selling them to the public and making them happen.

Not the only figure, but quite an important one.  

There are other phrases that can be used, such as 'trickle down voodoo'.  That sort of thing can be overdone.

Meanwhile, there have been successful big government programs, and unsuccessful one.  There have been times when the people have needed a lot of help, and times they do OK with less help.  There have been times and places where the government can become ingrown and corrupt, and times when they are less so.  Depending on what times and places one focuses on in US history, one can learn very different ideas on how America works, what is wrong with it, what is right, and what could be better.

Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others.  People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life.  He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly.  I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.

But you can't doubt that many of the key divides in the current Red / Blue divide are extremely stubborn.  I can find merit and historical cause for both sets of ideas, perhaps because my own values hold that world views that succeed became strong because they worked or seemed to have worked in their time.  I lived through the 60s and remember the notion that big problems ought to be confronted and solved, and this often involved throwing lots of money at problems.  I also saw the National Malaise, with the string of failed US policies and projects that disillusioned many about the effectiveness of the government.

There are two sets of lessons learned.  I think we would be better off if everyone tried to learn both sets of lessons.

But that's sure not what is happening.  Partisans like you and Eric will cling to the lessons and policies of one time and with intense prejudice find ways to reject the lessons and policies of other times.  This is going to the point of demonization, where anyone who holds the other set of values must be stupid, deluded, brainwashed, evil or a clone of Hitler.  Folks from either extreme aren't considering where the other side might be coming from.  They would rather assume that the other side is totally flying mammal excrement out of their minds.

I don't see either side as being more or less evil, deluded, stupid or etc...  I do see a pendulum that ought to be swinging with the cycles.  At the moment we have a large division of wealth and entrepreneurs are having no difficulty raising funds.  There is no current need for supply side stimulus, to take from the poor to give to the rich.  There is a real lack of jobs paying living wages.  This makes it a good time for demand side stimulus.  Money has to be inserted onto Main Street, where it will allow folk to buy and sell stuff, to get goods and services moving freely again.  If we can improve infrastructure, education and health care in the process, it's worth doing.

It's not a matter of one ideology or the other always being better.  It is a matter of honestly looking at what the nation needs and adjusting policy to match the current needs, not what the needs were when last a given party sized power.  Right now, Main Street has a lot more genuine needs than the Robber Barons.  The Robber Barons are riding as high as they ever have.

Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right.  It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective.  This doesn't seem to be happening, though.  You and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture.  Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes.  It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions.

I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe.  Still, the partisan divide continues.

[playwrite]

(08-18-2016, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

This may be true in the future, even the near future, but it's not true now.  We have two parties consisting of illogical coalitions, and the fact that the GOP is hitting the wall first doesn't make the Dems any less at risk.  So the Republican Party fractures, and then what?  I believe that the successor has to embrace the money, and bid adieu to the rest, preferring that to the exact opposite.  If the money stays, they will moderate all the RW nonsense and draw the UMC out of the Democratic Party.  If the money leaves, the GOP will become the old Democratic Party of the late 19th century.  They'll do better with the money, so that's what I expect.

That leaves the Dems with a coalition of niche special interests that tend to make demands on the party but fail to unite around any issues not their own.  In the current environment, the system will only support two major parties.  Money can fend for itself.  What about the herd-of-cats party?

Eric's got this right for those niches that are not the elites- you add them all up, let them compromise among themselves, and you got Chomsky's "population" sans the financial elites and the hillbillies.

And the financial elites on the Dem side are either for greater taxation on themselves (Warren Buffet), giving most of it away (Bill Gates; and without the Right's religious strings attached), or lobbying hard for Progressive agendas that do little for themselves (George Clooney, George Soros, Hollywood, Silicon Valley).

Together, that is a pretty solid coalition and well-financed.

On the Right, it is fracturing and collapsing.  Put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with someone like Classic and see who crawls out alive.

Trump is not the only one making the mistake that about 35% of the electorate/population/culture of the Right represents the entire US electorate/population/culture - it just that 35% makes a lot of noise and scares people, and that should be expected from a cornered large dying animal.

[playwrite]

(08-18-2016, 01:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

Whether driverless vehicles or other major infrastructure, the scenario you describe here is a lot like what the Asian Tigers did to move from 3rd world to 1st or at least high 2nd world countries. Most Americans are incredibly naive about what heavy hands the governments of Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea exert. The T-baggers would be screaming bloody murder daily about things most people in those countries take for granted and expect.

This is so true and insightful.

It's why there really can't be compromise among the players with Bob's noted value difference or some sort of emergence of a compromised "different way" (I'd say "3rd way" but that's got way too much baggage).  If it's a true 4T, the coalition of the Ayn Rand financial elites and their hillbilly sheeple has to go down at least as much as the 1580s Spanish Armada, 1770s American Tories, 1860s Plantation Owners (with their Southern poor White minions), and the 1930s Fascists.

And it will be for their own good as well as for everyone else.  The hillbillies will get good-paying jobs and the financial elites will have an economy that sustains them (although much more constrained in their vampire squid sucking)

[Classic-Xer]

(08-19-2016, 02:51 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

This may be true in the future, even the near future, but it's not true now.  We have two parties consisting of illogical coalitions, and the fact that the GOP is hitting the wall first doesn't make the Dems any less at risk.  So the Republican Party fractures, and then what?  I believe that the successor has to embrace the money, and bid adieu to the rest, preferring that to the exact opposite.  If the money stays, they will moderate all the RW nonsense and draw the UMC out of the Democratic Party.  If the money leaves, the GOP will become the old Democratic Party of the late 19th century.  They'll do better with the money, so that's what I expect.

That leaves the Dems with a coalition of niche special interests that tend to make demands on the party but fail to unite around any issues not their own.  In the current environment, the system will only support two major parties.  Money can fend for itself.  What about the herd-of-cats party?

Eric's got this right for those niches that are not the elites- you add them all up, let them compromise among themselves, and you got Chomsky's "population" sans the financial elites and the hillbillies.

And the financial elites on the Dem side are either for greater taxation on themselves (Warren Buffet), giving most of it away (Bill Gates; and without the Right's religious strings attached), or lobbying hard for Progressive agendas that do little for themselves (George Clooney, George Soros, Hollywood, Silicon Valley).

Together, that is a pretty solid coalition and well-financed.

On the Right, it is fracturing and collapsing.  Put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with someone like Classic and see who crawls out alive.

Trump is not the only one making the mistake that about 35% of the electorate/population/culture of the Right represents the entire US electorate/population/culture - it just that 35% makes a lot of noise and scares people, and that should be expected from a cornered large dying animal.

You put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with me, he'd end leaving the room broke and empty handed. Whether he's crawling like a liberal frat boy who was unable to convince me who didn't get his way who knows  that he iand others like him are financially doomed or he decides to walk out like a real man should after being rejected because the global ponzi scheme that he and his pals made a fortune in worthless digits has failed because there's no hard money to back them up, depends on what type of man the Hampton truly is at the core.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-19-2016, 06:36 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 10:54 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I may come across as being a lot like Reagan or very Reagan esque . However, Reagan wasn't the one who inspired me to become politically active and begin voting. The one who actually inspired me to become active and begin to vote was Ross Perot. I'm not a follower of Reagan in the way liberals often say that I am, portray me a being and come across to me as believing. I liked him as President and I view him as  the best president that I've seen during my life so far. But that it, I have no significant value placed on him. As I recall, Reagan was a transplanted Midwesterner like myself.

I'll confess I'm not the best at distinguishing between the various major conservative unraveling figures.  There is a saying that all sheep look alike, except to shepherds and other sheep.  I've been calling the base ideas of the unravelling the 'Reagan Memes'.  If you can suggest another phrase that might get the same idea across, I might consider.  Meanwhile, it has been an effective enough phrase to get the idea across, and Reagan was an important figure in selling them to the public and making them happen.

Not the only figure, but quite an important one.  

There are other phrases that can be used, such as 'trickle down voodoo'.  That sort of thing can be overdone.

Meanwhile, there have been successful big government programs, and unsuccessful one.  There have been times when the people have needed a lot of help, and times they do OK with less help.  There have been times and places where the government can become ingrown and corrupt, and times when they are less so.  Depending on what times and places one focuses on in US history, one can learn very different ideas on how America works, what is wrong with it, what is right, and what could be better.

Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others.  People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life.  He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly.  I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.

But you can't doubt that many of the key divides in the current Red / Blue divide are extremely stubborn.  I can find merit and historical cause for both sets of ideas, perhaps because my own values hold that world views that succeed became strong because they worked or seemed to have worked in their time.  I lived through the 60s and remember the notion that big problems ought to be confronted and solved, and this often involved throwing lots of money at problems.  I also saw the National Malaise, with the string of failed US policies and projects that disillusioned many about the effectiveness of the government.

There are two sets of lessons learned.  I think we would be better off if everyone tried to learn both sets of lessons.

But that's sure not what is happening.  Partisans like you and Eric will cling to the lessons and policies of one time and with intense prejudice find ways to reject the lessons and policies of other times.  This is going to the point of demonization, where anyone who holds the other set of values must be stupid, deluded, brainwashed, evil or a clone of Hitler.  Folks from either extreme aren't considering where the other side might be coming from.  They would rather assume that the other side is totally flying mammal excrement out of their minds.

I don't see either side as being more or less evil, deluded, stupid or etc...  I do see a pendulum that ought to be swinging with the cycles.  At the moment we have a large division of wealth and entrepreneurs are having no difficulty raising funds.  There is no current need for supply side stimulus, to take from the poor to give to the rich.  There is a real lack of jobs paying living wages.  This makes it a good time for demand side stimulus.  Money has to be inserted onto Main Street, where it will allow folk to buy and sell stuff, to get goods and services moving freely again.  If we can improve infrastructure, education and health care in the process, it's worth doing.

It's not a matter of one ideology or the other always being better.  It is a matter of honestly looking at what the nation needs and adjusting policy to match the current needs, not what the needs were when last a given party sized power.  Right now, Main Street has a lot more genuine needs than the Robber Barons.  The Robber Barons are riding as high as they ever have.

Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right.  It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective.  This doesn't seem to be happening, though.  You and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture.  Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes.  It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions.

I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe.  Still, the partisan divide continues.

I don't know many of the old Reagan memes. I can remember one when I was older during his second term, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".   BTW, greatness doesn't withdraw and isolate oneself to ones room or office and make demands of subordinates to only give him good news that supports his narrative and blames Americans for the position that he's been in for the bulk of his term. Obama is actually  more likeable when he's powerless.

I'm familiar with the concept of supply side economics (voodoo/trickle down economics). I have a fairly good grasp as far as how it's intended to work, how it actually has worked for most American voters including ourselves and how it tends to go against older liberal tax and spend logical as far as its ability to generate more revenues. Your tax and spend logic is outdated. Your logic is from an age that didn't have computers tracking everything. You represent the logic that used to be used by most prior to the technological age. I represent the logic that has been gained since the technological age which began for us with the election of Ronald Reagan.

Like you, I don't wear my heart/compassion on my sleeve. I'm not a so-called bleeding heart liberal or a so-called compassionate conservative. I don't automatically feel sorry for everyone who has an issue or problem and I'm not interested in saving soles or saving everyone. I would say most Americans are very similar to me in that way. What I found interesting with our old battles (battles during the Bush years during the Iraq war), as you were using compassion for the poor Iraqi's our military was killing and the oil that our country was interested in taking, you weren't seeing the compassion that I had for the soldiers you were accusing and the poor Iraqi's who are now under the brutal control of ISIS now. Now, whether that was real compassion or political passion for ones side, only you would now and only I can assume based on the use of my knowledge and intelligence. I assume that your political passion got in the way of your rational judgement at the time. Just so we are clear, Reagan Bush I and Bush II have no emotional value to me. The term Republican has some value to me but not enough to beak down and cry over if its politically defeated or gets replaced by another term.

I hope there are people who have a heart because if not that is a depressing world. I have collaborated with a Canadian who is helping me to help a lady in Sth Carolina who may end up an amputee unless we fund for her to get to a specialist as the health care system is apparently shit. We should help each other (not to the extent we destroy a nation of course).

America has a lot of heart.

[Mikebert]

Bob Butler Wrote:Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others.  People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life.  He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly.  I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.

You are equating values with beliefs.  They are different things.  Values are hard to change because they contain a strong emotional or even spiritual content.  Beliefs are logical constructs.  The latter is amenable to  “burned hand teaches best” experiences, the former, much less.  Our issue is not values lock, (what we believe to be good) but belief lock (how we believe the world works). 
 

Quote:Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right.  It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective.

They can and do.  The issue is, current policies are working just fine for elites, so why change?  The definition of elites are those who run the American state and its major institutions.  By definition, it is they who are to be convinced that policies need to be changed. Look at the past 4Ts.
 
Revolutionary 4T: Things were not good for American commercial elites like John Hancock, who were constrained by British mercantile policy.  Furthermore, British monetary policy repressed American businesses.  British Indian and frontier policy constrained land speculators and created internal problems like the Paxton terrorists in Western Pennsylvania.  When American elites got too frustrated they recruited a critical mass of non-elites to their cause, gained control of the colonial militias, and set up shop as an independent nation.
 
Civil War 4T: Things were definitively moving against the interest of Southern elites in the 1850’s. In 1860 what they perceived as an abolitionist party won the election.  It seemed likely that within a fairly short period of time they would be stripped of 60% of their wealth. They tried to pull out of the union peaceably, but the North wouldn’t have it, and what they feared happened to them, but only because they lost the war.
 
Depression 4T: American elites faced challenges, including a real revolutionary situation at the end of the 1896-1920 Progressive Era. Elites apparently successfully addressed this threat (see Gabriel Kolko’s book about the Progressive Era being a conservative program, and Kitty Calavita on the motive for immigration suppression in the early 1920's) without addressing the core problem, economic inequality.  Another way to put this is: problem was them, there are too many of them (elite proliferation) and they had too much of the pie. (see Peter Turchin’s stuff about secular cycles and elite proliferation). 

The only way to solve this problem is for some elites to take a haircut and become less elite. Volunteers, anyone? That wasn’t ever gonna happen, except it did.  Why?  Because the capitalist economy had collapsed, taking fair number of elites with it.  And so now there was elite motivation to DO something.  So changes were made to salvage things for one subset of elites at the expense of another.  How was this decided? Well liberal elites in the Democratic party were able to marshall superior forces and prevail over conservative elites in Republican party in the critical election of 1932.  This election served as a political revolution in place of a real one.
 

Quote:This doesn't seem to be happening, though.

Well the economy hasn’t collapsed yet. Every time its tried, the elites have managed to shore it back up. 

Quote:You and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture.  Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes.  It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions.  I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe.  Still, the partisan divide continues.

You make these fuzzy statements with no specific examples of what you mean.  Can you give some specific examples where you apply what you are talking about in order to illustrate them.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-20-2016, 08:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Bob Butler Wrote:Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others.  People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life.  He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly.  I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.

You are equating values with beliefs.  They are different things.  Values are hard to change because they contain a strong emotional or even spiritual content.  Beliefs are logical constructs.  The latter is amenable to  “burned hand teaches best” experiences, the former, much less.  Our issue is not values lock, (what we believe to be good) but belief lock (how we believe the world works). 
 

I use both 'world views' and 'values'.  World views would be what you are calling beliefs...  how does the world work, while values say what goals should be pursued.  Both can be stubborn, hard to change.  Both can be important.  I will sometimes use one phrase to indicate elements of both.  It is just easier to read if one says 'values' instead of 'world views and values'.  At other times I'm just focusing on one or the other, and will use one of the other.

But while my language might not be ideal, and the two are tied into one another tightly, one informing and being derived from the other, I shan't disagree with your primary statement here.  Conflict in world views is very important.

(08-20-2016, 08:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Bob Butler Wrote:Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right.  It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective.

They can and do.  The issue is, current policies are working just fine for elites, so why change?  The definition of elites are those who run the American state and its major institutions.  By definition, it is they who are to be convinced that policies need to be changed. Look at the past 4Ts.
 
Revolutionary 4T: Things were not good for American commercial elites like John Hancock, who were constrained by British mercantile policy.  Furthermore, British monetary policy repressed American businesses.  British Indian and frontier policy constrained land speculators and created internal problems like the Paxton terrorists in Western Pennsylvania.  When American elites got too frustrated they recruited a critical mass of non-elites to their cause, gained control of the colonial militias, and set up shop as an independent nation.
 
Civil War 4T: Things were definitively moving against the interest of Southern elites in the 1850’s. In 1860 what they perceived as an abolitionist party won the election.  It seemed likely that within a fairly short period of time they would be stripped of 60% of their wealth. They tried to pull out of the union peaceably, but the North wouldn’t have it, and what they feared happened to them, but only because they lost the war.
 
Depression 4T: American elites faced challenges, including a real revolutionary situation at the end of the 1896-1920 Progressive Era. Elites apparently successfully addressed this threat (see Gabriel Kolko’s book about the Progressive Era being a conservative program, and Kitty Calavita on the motive for immigration suppression in the early 1920's) without addressing the core problem, economic inequality.  Another way to put this is: problem was them, there are too many of them (elite proliferation) and they had too much of the pie. (see Peter Turchin’s stuff about secular cycles and elite proliferation). 

The only way to solve this problem is for some elites to take a haircut and become less elite. Volunteers, anyone? That wasn’t ever gonna happen, except it did.  Why?  Because the capitalist economy had collapsed, taking fair number of elites with it.  And so now there was elite motivation to DO something.  So changes were made to salvage things for one subset of elites at the expense of another.  How was this decided? Well liberal elites in the Democratic party were able to marshall superior forces and prevail over conservative elites in Republican party in the critical election of 1932.  This election served as a political revolution in place of a real one.
 

When reading your posts, I have long and often noted an emphasis you place on the importance of the elites.  This might be described as a world view clash.  When analyzing a given crisis, you will focus on the elites, while I will focus on the ordinary people.  Which belief is more accurate?

I am not going to dismiss or make light of the role of the elites.  In the examples you list above, one can project elites fighting over financial and political power, while the bulk of the population might care about taxation without representation, slavery, and life without increasingly grievous economic collapses.  I shall not in the least say you are wrong in saying the elites are very very important in shaping a crisis, and I'd add that the motivations and values of the common people are often very different from the elites.

But crises are not settled in smoked filled rooms by a handful of elites.  Conflicts can be settled at the ballot box.  Lincoln and FDR got elected.  Conflicts can be settled on the battle field.  How many people are willing to fight how hard to support their beliefs and values?  Yes, there was a power struggle between the southern slave owners and the northern robber barons on what shape the government and the country would take.  It would never have gone to the battle field without John Brown and the abolitionists though.

Again, I see your belief system as overly focused on the role of the elites with a certain degree of blindness to the importance of democracy and war.  Again, this isn't to say that elites aren't important.  They are.  They aren't all important.

In our current situation, groups of elites did not decide to make Donald Trump president.  The Donald's place was decided by a whole bunch of people angry at the  Republican establishment.  Thus, your world view is discredited.  Let's see how easily you change.

(08-20-2016, 08:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Bob Butler Wrote:You and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture.  Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes.  It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions.  I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe.  Still, the partisan divide continues.

You make these fuzzy statements with no specific examples of what you mean.  Can you give some specific examples where you apply what you are talking about in order to illustrate them.

The common red / blue difference is in beliefs in how effective the government can be.  For someone embracing red beliefs, government is inefficient, corrupt and ineffective.  Tax and spend is anathema.  When in doubt, cut taxes and force the government to cut services.  If the era of the National Malaise was formative, one might be inclined to buy into this.  On the blue side, there is a belief that the government can do much good.  From the 30s through the 60s, the GIs basically ran on 'see problem solve same'.  They would not hesitate to throw large amounts of money at a problem.  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Another example might be the red preference for supply side stimulus and the blue preference for demand side.  Here, I might note an association between a belief system and self interest.  Even if a robber baron knows full well there is no need to make more money available for investment, he might favor supply side as he might well think that tax cuts to the wealthy is to his personal advantage.  Similarly, supposing hypothetically a time of full employment with most to all earning a living wage, someone living on main street might still favor additional demand side stimulus.  One's world view and values are absolutely effected by one's wallet.

Now, I didn't feel a need to review with Eric and Classic these basic differences between their ways of thinking.  Neither asked for clarification.  I have spoken on both sets of beliefs many a time, and they are not unrelated.  That you needed to ask implies to me that you have not been reading my stuff with any attention at all.  To some degree I'm willing to feed you US politics and economics 101, but I've found that when your perspective on things clash with common points of view you are very slow to comprehend common points of view.  Your own world view is not as objective as you seem to think.  At times you are unable to recognize or understand stuff that should be basic to those living in the United States.  I find myself repeating Jr High school level political concepts and finding you unable to acknowledge them.  I associate this with a values lock problem, and have learned to avoid interacting with you as the experience is futile.  I have better experiences with more open minded and flexible thinkers like Eric and Classic.

Well.  Slight exaggeration.

[pbrower2a]

What if both supply-side (stimulate production by making it more lucrative to ownership and management through tax cuts on their high incomes) and demand-side (enticing people to buy more stuff) economics are obsolete? The only possible growth in teh demand for material objects comes as the result of population growth, itself a suspect objective.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-20-2016, 02:07 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: What if both supply-side (stimulate production by making it more lucrative to ownership and management through tax cuts on their high incomes) and demand-side (enticing people to buy more stuff) economics are obsolete?  The only possible growth in teh demand for material objects comes as the result of population growth, itself a suspect objective.

Your what ifs look awfully broad and permanent to me.  I am willing to say that this is not the correct time for supply side.  I would point at the availability of funds for investment and large division of wealth as evidence for it.  You don't need to make more funds for investment available if there is already and oversupply of funds for investment.  This is not the same as saying that supply side is obsolete, that it is inconceivable that a time will ever come again some decades or centuries down stream when supply side might be beneficial.

I'd agree that a permanent policy of population growth as stimulus is apt to become bad policy as resources become more scarce.  It might already be a bad policy.  I sometimes wistfully daydream about a set of values where people seek out a satisfying life that doesn't require large expenditures of energy and other resources.  As an example, I once flew a trainer airplane in a dogfight against another such plane and found it a very interesting and exciting adrenalin sport.  Cool.  Fun.  One is definitely on the edge of information and sensory overload.  Will we someday have and want every teen age kid having a personal airplane so he can go up and dogfight?  Probably not.  Table tennis is another sport that requires far less resources.  Why can't people be satisfied with table tennis?

In short I'm much more ready to talk about whether an economic approach is working now rather than talk about if it is inconceivable that it will never work again.  My crystal ball just isn't that good.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-20-2016, 11:53 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The common red / blue difference is in beliefs in how effective the government can be.  For someone embracing red beliefs, government is inefficient, corrupt and ineffective.  Tax and spend is anathema.  When in doubt, cut taxes and force the government to cut services.  If the era of the National Malaise was formative, one might be inclined to buy into this.  On the blue side, there is a belief that the government can do much good.  From the 30s through the 60s, the GIs basically ran on 'see problem solve same'.  They would not hesitate to throw large amounts of money at a problem.  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Another example might be the red preference for supply side stimulus and the blue preference for demand side.  Here, I might note an association between a belief system and self interest.  Even if a robber baron knows full well there is no need to make more money available for investment, he might favor supply side as he might well think that tax cuts to the wealthy is to his personal advantage.  Similarly, supposing hypothetically a time of full employment with most to all earning a living wage, someone living on main street might still favor additional demand side stimulus.  One's world view and values are absolutely effected by one's wallet.

Now, I didn't feel a need to review with Eric and Classic these basic differences between their ways of thinking.  Neither asked for clarification.  I have spoken on both sets of beliefs many a time, and they are not unrelated.  That you needed to ask implies to me that you have not been reading my stuff with any attention at all.  To some degree I'm willing to feed you US politics and economics 101, but I've found that when your perspective on things clash with common points of view you are very slow to comprehend common points of view.  Your own world view is not as objective as you seem to think.  At times you are unable to recognize or understand stuff that should be basic to those living in the United States.  I find myself repeating Jr High school level political concepts and finding you unable to acknowledge them.  I associate this with a values lock problem, and have learned to avoid interacting with you as the experience is futile.  I have better experiences with more open minded and flexible thinkers like Eric and Classic.

Well.  Slight exaggeration.

You should take more time and review the obvious differences in our ways of thinking. You should also quit stereotyping and quit sticking with the old stereotypes that you apply here. If you don't like vile stereotypes, you should probably stay away from vile stereotypes or begin to address the use of vile stereotypes as they pop up on your side. I may be wrong but I assume that you'd want the support of Republican voter wealth and all the taxes and economic growth that's associated with it during the 1T. I assume that you're not interested in going it alone following a crisis that results in a divide. Have you ever worked a shit job or two in the process of moving oneself ahead? I get the impression that most blue bloods here have never had a shit job. Who can better relate with those who are stuck in shit jobs? Hint: There are no Democratic (regular working class) voters here, I'm the closest one here to being one of them. Who's views and beliefs are closer to representing them? It ain't you, it ain't Eric and its definitely not Hilary Clinton. As I've told you before, I'm not in the market for people looking for handouts, looking to sit on a public bench while being paid, looking for government to continue advancing people based on race and gender or looking for government to continue upholding it's end of an agreement that a past government made with public sector unions and union contractors. I'm not associated with people who either hold or identify with those values.

I'm not a fan of cyclical history. I'm not a fan of a theory that has an obvious flaw. A flaw that places two particular age groups of people (boomers and millennials) in prominent roles. I'm not saying marketing dollars and value played a significant role in how the theory was laid out and presented to the public. However, it sure looks a fairly strong possibility to me at this point. The basic concept may prove to be quite accurate considering we are now approaching the four score and seven years mark.

[Eric the Green]

(08-20-2016, 05:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-20-2016, 11:53 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The common red / blue difference is in beliefs in how effective the government can be.  For someone embracing red beliefs, government is inefficient, corrupt and ineffective.  Tax and spend is anathema.  When in doubt, cut taxes and force the government to cut services.  If the era of the National Malaise was formative, one might be inclined to buy into this.  On the blue side, there is a belief that the government can do much good.  From the 30s through the 60s, the GIs basically ran on 'see problem solve same'.  They would not hesitate to throw large amounts of money at a problem.  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Another example might be the red preference for supply side stimulus and the blue preference for demand side.  Here, I might note an association between a belief system and self interest.  Even if a robber baron knows full well there is no need to make more money available for investment, he might favor supply side as he might well think that tax cuts to the wealthy is to his personal advantage.  Similarly, supposing hypothetically a time of full employment with most to all earning a living wage, someone living on main street might still favor additional demand side stimulus.  One's world view and values are absolutely effected by one's wallet.

Now, I didn't feel a need to review with Eric and Classic these basic differences between their ways of thinking.  Neither asked for clarification.  I have spoken on both sets of beliefs many a time, and they are not unrelated.  That you needed to ask implies to me that you have not been reading my stuff with any attention at all.  To some degree I'm willing to feed you US politics and economics 101, but I've found that when your perspective on things clash with common points of view you are very slow to comprehend common points of view.  Your own world view is not as objective as you seem to think.  At times you are unable to recognize or understand stuff that should be basic to those living in the United States.  I find myself repeating Jr High school level political concepts and finding you unable to acknowledge them.  I associate this with a values lock problem, and have learned to avoid interacting with you as the experience is futile.  I have better experiences with more open minded and flexible thinkers like Eric and Classic.

Well.  Slight exaggeration.

You should take more time and review the obvious differences in our ways of thinking. You should also quit stereotyping and quit sticking with the old stereotypes that you apply here. If you don't like vile stereotypes, you should probably stay away from vile stereotypes or begin to address the use of vile stereotypes as they pop up on your side. I may be wrong but I assume that you'd want the support of Republican voter wealth and all the taxes and economic growth that's associated with it during the 1T. I assume that you're not interested in going it alone following a crisis that results in a divide. Have you ever worked a shit job or two in the process of moving oneself ahead? I get the impression that most blue bloods here have never had a shit job. Who can better relate with those who are stuck in shit jobs? Hint: There are no Democratic (regular working class) voters here, I'm the closest one here to being one of them. Who's views and beliefs are closer to representing them? It ain't you, it ain't Eric and its definitely not Hilary Clinton. As I've told you before, I'm not in the market for people looking for handouts, looking to sit on a public bench while being paid, looking for government to continue advancing people based on race and gender or looking for government to continue upholding it's end of an agreement that a past government made with public sector unions and union contractors. I'm not associated with people who either hold or identify with those values.

Wrong again in your assessment of me. I indeed worked shit jobs through the 1970s, until I went off on my own as an entrepreneur in the 80s, and I converted my business to a non-profit for the 00s and today.

If you are not associated with those values, as you pejoratively describe them, you are not on board with working people. Resentment against "paying taxes for people who don't work" is the leading meme and slogan with which Republicans hook naive and gullible folks like you to be on board with their program of screwing over workers and all the people. "Advancing people based on race and gender" is the race dog whistle. It's all too obvious at this point, and I don't yet understand why people don't see through this nonsense.

But there's little doubt that a lot of people still don't. I say to you guys, pay your taxes and stop worrying about it. Climate change, wars of choice, inequality and lack of opportunity, low wages, high prices, money dominating politics; these are the things that informed and intelligent people today are concerned about; not high taxes. Get on board, and leave the 18th and 19th century behind. The train will soon leave the station and leave you standing on the (Republican) platform.

Quote:I'm not a fan of cyclical history. I'm not a fan of a theory that has an obvious flaw. A flaw that places two particular age groups of people (boomers and millennials) in prominent roles. I'm not saying marketing dollars and value played a significant role in how the theory was laid out and presented to the public. However, it sure looks a fairly strong possibility to me at this point. The basic concept may prove to be quite accurate considering we are now approaching the four score and seven years mark.

I'm a fan, but I understand why some Xers and Silents might not accept the "subordinate" role which the theory assigns to adaptive artists and reactive nomads. Their name for the latter is not too complimentary either, and they stretched the years for the idealist/prophets to include two guys that arguably are actually nomads, Lincoln and FDR.

You can't deny, however, the basic metaphysical doctrine that is at work in their scheme. There is always yin and yang, light and dark, male and female, dominant and recessive, in everything. The yang side may get the better hype, but neither is possible without the other.

[Eric the Green]

Anyone think Trump will take up Seth's idea?





bees beeeeeware!

[Classic-Xer]

What is your line of business? Does your line of business have more in common with giving and receiving hand outs than it does with making profits and contributing taxes? I get the impression that it does. You own a NON profit that is not subject to taxation and therefore not a tax contributor to the things that we have and things that you want to add. I own a FOR profit that is subject to taxation on its profits. I own a profitable business. Well, if you're right, the so called Nomads pretty much have a lock on the grey champion.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-20-2016, 07:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Anyone think Trump will take up Seth's idea?





bees beeeeeware!

Anyone think/believe that this dude would be a serious contender in much of anything other than what he does for a living?

[Eric the Green]

(08-20-2016, 08:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What is your line of business? Does your line of business have more in common with giving and receiving hand outs than it does with making profits and contributing taxes? I get the impression that it does.

No.

You make the same mistake that Brian Rush used to make, and Taramarie makes today. What I say is all about me personally. That's an easy way to escape the truth that I say, which is true on its own merits, a matter of facts and logic and irrefutable by you. So, since you can't answer my points, do ad hominems. No offense taken by me, but it IS rather pathetic.

Quote: You own a NON profit that is not subject to taxation and therefore not a tax contributor to the things that we have and things that you want to add. I own a FOR profit that is subject to taxation on its profits.

It was for-profit for 16 years. Even so, I have to pay the payroll tax now. Actually, according to the IRS, I am a proprietorship again, due to a paperwork oversight on my part. I know I know; only a dependent librul would ever make a mistake....

Quote:Well, if you're right, the so called Nomads pretty much have a lock on the grey champion.

Might be so. Or, another one like Obama, on the cusp. There's more than one, you know. That may be recognized this time. I don't see another Lincoln or FDR on the horizon. But, we'll see.

[Eric the Green]

(08-20-2016, 08:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-20-2016, 07:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Anyone think Trump will take up Seth's idea?





bees beeeeeware!

Anyone think/believe that this dude would be a serious contender in much of anything other than what he does for a living?

That might be a fair question. He seems like a fun teenager. But that's why he's so cool. I imagine a guy like that is confident and bright enough to be successful in many lines of work. Maybe not as a corporate underling. And-- Maybe not your line. Of course, it takes great talent to be successful in his field. You don't see too many people in his position, do ya?

Of course, since Seth and Trump are in the same line of work, maybe Seth is qualified to be president. Ya think? Where does this show-biz politics end? Reagan was more than enough; way too much!

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-20-2016, 08:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-20-2016, 07:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Anyone think Trump will take up Seth's idea?





bees beeeeeware!

Anyone think/believe that this dude would be a serious contender in much of anything other than what he does for a living?

A wouldn't judge an actor by the part he is playing.  Go on the air in an environment like that and you're out to entertain.  I wouldn't presume to guess what he'd be like off stage.

[Mikebert]

Bob Butler Wrote:When reading your posts, I have long and often noted an emphasis you place on the importance of the elites.  This might be described as a world view clash.  When analyzing a given crisis, you will focus on the elites, while I will focus on the ordinary people.

Quite true, but I used to think like you do.  In fact the emphasis on elites comes from the influence secular cycle dynamics, which is a field I have been exploring for several years.   My views comes from scholarship concerning how movements that lack elite sponsorship generally fail. 

Quote:I am not going to dismiss or make light of the role of the elites.  In the examples you list above, one can project elites fighting over financial and political power, while the bulk of the population might care about taxation without representation, slavery, and life without increasingly grievous economic collapses.

Well the bulk of the population did not pay taxes to the British government. As far as slavery is concerned it is not might.  Most white men were racists and did not care whether or not slaves were free.  There were many who bought into the Slave Power conspiracy (that said the goal of Southern slave-owners was the join forces with financial elites to enslave poor white men). These people opposed the expansion of slavery outside of the South. As long as it was kept bottled up in the Southern states (now a minority in Senate as well as the House) that was fine.  In fact this was the platform Lincoln ran on. 
 
Lincoln only won 49% of the vote in the states that remained in the Union in 1860, so he hardly had a mandate.  It was only after the war, when northern Republicans were able to wave the bloody shirt that the North became solidly Republican. Lincoln knew this, which is why he framed the war as solely about restoring the union. 
 
As for the last crisis, sure the bulk of the population (elites too) cared about economic misery of the working class.  And when those concerns had elite backing, things happened (the Progressive Era, the New Deal).  When the common people rose up in rebellion in 1919, not so much, there were no more progressive policy changes, elites closed ranks, and the nascent rebellion was suppressed much as the Brits had done in 1848.  The county who just eight years earlier had shouted for the Left, wanted nothing to do with them now and went for a “Return to Normalcy” and conservative rule. 

Quote:I'd add that the motivations and values of the common people are often very different from the elites.

Motivations yes, values not so much.  Elites are people too and they will often share similar views with regular people on a whole range of political and cultural issues.

Quote:But crises are not settled in smoked filled rooms by a handful of elites.

Huh?  Since when can a 4T conflict be handled by negotiation. Crisis is resolved by victory for one side.

Quote:Conflicts can be settled at the ballot box.

Once so far. 
 

Quote:Conflicts can be settled on the battle field.

Every other time.

Quote:It (Civil War) would never have gone to the battle field without John Brown and the abolitionists though.

Do you really think if there had been no John Brown, the North would have let the South secede?  Can you provide any evidence in support of this notion?

Quote:In our current situation, groups of elites did not decide to make Donald Trump president.

Donald Trump is himself an elite.  So how can you say that the Trump phenomenon is not elite-led?

Quote:The Donald's place was decided by a whole bunch of people angry at the Republican establishment.

Elites are not magicians.  They exercise influence by working with the resources that are available.  Folks have been angry at the Republican establishment for a long time.  That’s what the Tea party was originally about.  Similarly, OWS was disgusted with the so-called Progressive elites. 
 
The TP  was taken over by Republican elites much like the Know-Nothings were taken over by Whig elites in the mid 1850’s.  OWS had no elite involvement and it withered away. Since their movement was co-opted and their champions unable to dislodge Obama, the Tea Party declined.  The anger remained until another elite came along (Trump) and channeled it for his own purposes.  Do you seriously think Donald Trump is about anything else besides Donald Trump?  So how this is count as the common people creating the change they want?