What do you think are the major pros/cons of each current generation?

[Eric the Green]

(02-19-2022, 03:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Entrepreneur Nick Hanauer provides one of my favorite explanations of how trickle-down economics rips us all off.

https://fb.watch/bh4c8sHXDE/

"You only have to rely on wealth "trickling down" if you are dependent on employment" - JasonBlack

As Hanauer says, if people have no money, who will buy the stuff? Trickle-down economics policies of low wages means fewer customers for small business.

[JasonBlack]

(02-20-2022, 05:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: In these sorts of evaluations of whole groups of people, it's best to take them with a grain of salt; or maybe a salt mine's worth. And personal experiences are likely to be limited and/or biased compared to studies by science or investigative journalism where we can put some facts and numbers to go along with peoples' stories.

100%
One of the reasons I like to talk about these kinds of things is precisely because I feel like it's more useful for people to consciously map out what their impressions, biases and expectations are. It's common for a lot of people to associate positively with the concept of being "unbiased", only to end up unconsciously ignoring them and having them pop up later. When they're mapped out in advance, you know what you have to avoid.

[beechnut79]

(02-20-2022, 07:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-19-2022, 03:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Entrepreneur Nick Hanauer provides one of my favorite explanations of how trickle-down economics rips us all off.

https://fb.watch/bh4c8sHXDE/

"You only have to rely on wealth "trickling down" if you are dependent on employment" - JasonBlack

As Hanauer says, if people have no money, who will buy the stuff? Trickle-down economics policies of low wages means fewer customers for small business.

May have got lost in the shuffle, but this comment brings to mind one I made where I opined that Reaganomics has remained on the shelf long past what should have been its sell-by date. I was hopeful that would come during Obama’s tenure. When do you foresee it’s true SBD arriving.

[JasonBlack]

Overall, I like the Silent Gen a lot (probably better than any of the currently-more-influential generations underneath them in age), but....there were a large cohort of them who were fucking traitors. So...you spend your childhood looking up to those heroic GIs, then try to get married and grow up fast to impress them...only to go turncoat for those degenerate boomers who burned everything down in the 70s? They were also the first generation to normalize being disobedient to the husband, so that's a definite minus as well. Looking at it from their perspective, a lot of them probably didn't feel super well respected by their macho next elders, and obviously, a lot of the civil rights stuff was really important, but from the GI perspective, I would probably be looking down on them like "you disloyal little p*ssy! if you were old enough to fight in the war, you probably would have been a deserter"

fwiw, I respect a lot of boomers now once they've grown more experienced and principled, but boomers in the 70s?....eww. I would have had zero respect for them, the same way I have zero respect for people my age obsessed with rioting? With that said, I've been thinking a lot about how I would have responded to the Awakening era, and I think I would have largely mixed emotions. The conservative in me would have been like "eww! self-destructive degeneracy, irresponsible parenting, disrespecting historical accomplishments and reckless risk-taking!", but the libertarian in me would have been like "Finally some non-conformity, individualism and intellectual discourse. Oh, and they're anti-war too. That shit is dope!"

When the "new boomers" start coming onto the scene when the oldest reach 15-16, I will be interested to see who I end up siding with more. In all likelihood, it will be a mix of both.

[David Horn]

Sorry I missed this at the time. I was on vacation, and, by family policy, we turn-of the internet when we go. It's easier to enjoy yourself if the worries of the world don't intrude.

(02-20-2022, 03:45 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:You might want to give Thomas Pikkety's book Capital in the 21st Century a read (not a trivial undertaking, to be totally honest about it).  He makes the point with one simple mathematical expression: r > G.  What he means by that is, rate of return on investments exceeds the Growth rate of the economy.  This has been going on for a long time and is in full crescendo today.  When that occurs, the holders of capital, mostly the already very wealthy, increase their wealth faster than the economy grows, so the excess becomes even more capital and buys what they don't already own.  Given enough time, and that time frame isn't all that long, the few hyper wealthy will own everything.  OK, you might have a home, at least for a while, but that imbalance is terminal.  It's a formula for modern Feudalism.  The purpose of the book is to show that in terms that can't be ignored -- which it does in spades.

Personally I blame this as much on fiat currency as anything else. We went off the gold standard in 1971 and this happened. Wages have a long history of rising far slower than inflation under such a model. The primary people it hurts are wage earners, responsible savers and retirees no longer earning income. 

I can tell you as an investor, it's not us it hurts haha. 

I doubt this can be blamed on Bretton Woods.  More to the point, we had two oil shocks: '71 and '79.  When the cost of fuel doubles, like it did in '71, inflation will take hold.  Since your chart is in "real earnings", the inflation factor has been obscured, but that's the beginning of stagflation that created the cover big business used to raise prices at will.  Worse, the economic darling of the time, Milton Friedman, made the argument that the only purpose of business is profit.  This Friedman Doctrine became the business standard after Netron Jack Welch adopted it in earnest at GE.  

99% of this problem originated in the private sector, but the public sector not only failed to dampen it, Reagan actually cheered it on.  Once inflation was tamed by Paul Volker and the unions tamed by Saint Ronny, the curve became permanent.

Jason Wrote:

David Wrote:The idea is wonderful in theory and unworkable in practice. A capitalist economy operates on a positive feedback loop: get rich, use that wealth to get richer, rinse and repeat.  Lobbyists, disgusting as they are, are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

It's not unworkable in practice. New Zealand saw HUGE drops in corruption when they severely restricted campaign spending. Currently they fluctuate between 1st and 2nd place in terms of low government corruption.

I thought you were a capitalist. This is more along the lines of my thinking on social policy. Unfortunately, emulating the Kiwis will require a new and improved SCOTUS. I good with that. How about you?

[pbrower2a]

This happens when economic rents become the measure of economic success. Property rent is one form of economic rent -- that if it has a huge load of profit, the unusual profit is economic rent. (This is not to be confused with rentals. If you are renting video discs instead of buying video discs, then you have a rental expense instead of a tangible purchase. Another example of economic rent is that someone makes far more in income than is necessary to keep him formally employed where he is. Much of the income of Mike Trout is economic rent. What would happen if he were to find that Major League Baseball would disappear? He would do something else for much less).

Example of economic rent: software engineers in Silicon Valley are paying exorbitant rents for less-than-extraordinary housing. With property rents that high, you can just imagine what that does to such people as schoolteachers, barbers, and vehicle repairmen that communities need.

[JasonBlack]

(05-10-2022, 01:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: I thought you were a capitalist. This is more along the lines of my thinking on social policy. Unfortunately, emulating the Kiwis will require a new and improved SCOTUS. I good with that. How about you?

I am a capitalist. All capitalism means is that you demand a market economy rather than a command economy (I know leftists hate the word, but that's exactly what a communist or socialist economy is). It doesn't mean you can't have sensible regulations, or that you have the right to buy political influence the same way you do good or services. There are many successful capitalist countries in the world right now (I'd argue every single successful one is at least moderately capitalistic), so we have a range of different models to explore therein.

My main priorities are incentives and checks and balances. A more laissez faire approach is preferred toward those ends, but it doesn't always work out.


As for the Supreme Court of NZ, I don't know enough to have an opinion.

[David Horn]

(05-10-2022, 08:45 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-10-2022, 01:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: I thought you were a capitalist.  This is more along the lines of my thinking on social policy.  Unfortunately, emulating the Kiwis will require a new and improved SCOTUS.  I good with that.  How about you?

I am a capitalist. All capitalism means is that you demand a market economy rather than a command economy (I know leftists hate the word, but that's exactly what a communist or socialist economy is).

No, that's not true.  A "market economy" assumes dispersed ownership, true, but that's not anything like a command economy.  You have imposed Marxist-Leninism on the term.  Socialism is not a government form.  It's economic.  We even tried it here in the 19th century.  Are familiar with Amana?  The entire enterprise began as a cooperative.  That's socialism in its purest form -- and most rational, I might note.  

Government based models, that have a more-or-less nanny government and a cooperative work arrangement, also exist in the US.  The #1 example: the US Armed Services.

Jason Wrote:It doesn't mean you can't have sensible regulations, or that you have the right to buy political influence the same way you do good or services. There are many successful capitalist countries in the world right now (I'd argue every single successful one is at least moderately capitalistic), so we have a range of different models to explore therein.

Mixed economies are common, but should not be called "capitalist", per se.  Both Finland and Sweden are great examples.  There are private companies and public ones.

Jason Wrote:My main priorities are incentives and checks and balances. A more laissez faire approach is preferred toward those ends, but it doesn't always work out.

Let's be more precise: it never works out.  The less power government exercises, the more that's exercised by the private sector, and it isn't exercised for the benefit of anyone but the owner class.  If there has ever been a better example than the case today, I can't think of one.  Gilded Age 1.0 was close.

Jasom Wrote:As for the Supreme Court of NZ, I don't know enough to have an opinion.

The anti-corruption campaign was primarily in the political sphere.

[JasonBlack]

David Horn

Quote:Let's be more precise: it never works out.  The less power government exercises, the more that's exercised by the private sector, and it isn't exercised for the benefit of anyone but the owner class.  If there has ever been a better example than the case today, I can't think of one.  Gilded Age 1.0 was close.

Checks and balances are an intended result of policy, not a specific strategy or system to attain said results. As such, this criticism is misplaced (it would be like me saying that fighting racism "never works out" just because affirmative action hasn't gotten good results). 

If what you mean is "the kind of rampant individualism and anarcho capitalism you long for never works out", I'm inclined to agree. I have become more collectivistic for pragmatic reasons as a result. However, this does not mean that "wanting to create better checks and balances never works out". There are countries with varying degrees of checks and balances . Obviously, none of them are perfect, but the ones that have more tend to do a lot better economically and socially than the ones who have less. What I'm saying here is that, more broadly, checks and balances are an area I tend to focus on, because I think they are the most crucial way to protect freedom.

[David Horn]

(05-15-2022, 11:26 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: David Horn

Quote:Let's be more precise: it never works out.  The less power government exercises, the more that's exercised by the private sector, and it isn't exercised for the benefit of anyone but the owner class.  If there has ever been a better example than the case today, I can't think of one.  Gilded Age 1.0 was close.

Checks and balances are an intended result of policy, not a specific strategy or system to attain said results. As such, this criticism is misplaced (it would be like me saying that fighting racism "never works out" just because affirmative action hasn't gotten good results). 

If what you mean is "the kind of rampant individualism and anarcho capitalism you long for never works out", I'm inclined to agree. I have become more collectivistic for pragmatic reasons as a result. However, this does not mean that "wanting to create better checks and balances never works out". There are countries with varying degrees of checks and balances . Obviously, none of them are perfect, but the ones that have more tend to do a lot better economically and socially than the ones who have less. What I'm saying here is that, more broadly, checks and balances are an area I tend to focus on, because I think they are the most crucial way to protect freedom.

There is one huge difference between race or any other culture related issue and the power of the massively rich.  The second group has it within its power, jointly or often individually, to force favorable change if countervailing power is inadequate.  I've had this argument over and over again with libertarians.  The power of wealth is not like any other political marker.  It empowers itself and has the ability to sustain itself without regard to anyone or anything else.  Look at the Kochs, the Mercers or Peter Thiel on the right and the great bugaboo George Soros on the left.  They ask no permission; seek no adherents.  They just act.

[JasonBlack]

Both Millennials and Zoomers do this thing where they'll ask what's wrong and want to know about your problems...for the sake of finding someone else who seems to be doing as badly as they are. "Nooo! Don't let me be a loser alone!". I find this pathetic and completely disingenuous, and the vast majority of Gen X and Boomers have too much self-respect to resort to this kind of behavior.

[David Horn]

(05-31-2022, 04:15 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: Both Millennials and Zoomers do this thing where they'll ask what's wrong and want to know about your problems...for the sake of finding someone else who seems to be doing as badly as they are. "Nooo! Don't let me be a loser alone!". I find this pathetic and completely disingenuous, and the vast majority of Gen X and Boomers have too much self-respect to resort to this kind of behavior.

The limit to empathy is self-pity, and that seems to be what you're implying here.  I'm of the firm belief that all the trigger warnings served no one well.  They merely imposed an ethos of softness, and it's starting to show.  Life has sharp edges.  Trying to grind them all flat merely disguises them; it doesn't eliminate them.

[Eric the Green]

(05-31-2022, 04:15 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: Both Millennials and Zoomers do this thing where they'll ask what's wrong and want to know about your problems...for the sake of finding someone else who seems to be doing as badly as they are. "Nooo! Don't let me be a loser alone!". I find this pathetic and completely disingenuous, and the vast majority of Gen X and Boomers have too much self-respect to resort to this kind of behavior.

It's amazing that you are able to discern such general negative traits and apply them to a whole generation or two.

[JasonBlack]

(06-01-2022, 11:49 AM)David Horn Wrote: The limit to empathy is self-pity, and that seems to be what you're implying here.  I'm of the firm belief that all the trigger warnings served no one well.  They merely imposed an ethos of softness, and it's starting to show.  Life has sharp edges.  Trying to grind them all flat merely disguises them; it doesn't eliminate them.

Precisely

(06-01-2022, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's amazing that you are able to discern such general negative traits and apply them to a whole generation or two.

It's hardly amazing to point out recurring behaviors which you have to tiptoe around for the sake of staying employed. If I'm being overly biting, it's because millennials are a generation addicted to positivity and using infantile tactics to cry out for help. No, it doesn't apply to all millennials (I'd certainly be disappointed were I to find out I were doing this!), but as stated in the OP, this is a thread for pointing out general trends, and imo, you're a little more justified in being harsher on your own generation than others.


while I'm here, the Gen X culture of "figure it out yourself" needs to die. I respect the hell out of people who are able to do this, but I really REALLY hate how normalized it has become. Learning things from experience is a necessary part of life, but part of being a good parent or a good teacher is giving children information in advance....so that they don't have to learn things the hard way like you did. They will get their bumps, bruises and, perhaps, even broken bones from life, but at the same time, it makes no sense not to employ damage control or give heads up when possible. There is no need to make life more difficult than it needs to be.

[David Horn]

(06-01-2022, 02:29 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: while I'm here, the Gen X culture of "figure it out yourself" needs to die. I respect the hell out of people who are able to do this, but I really REALLY hate how normalized it has become. Learning things from experience is a necessary part of life, but part of being a good parent or a good teacher is giving children information in advance....so that they don't have to learn things the hard way like you did. They will get their bumps, bruises and, perhaps, even broken bones from life, but at the same time, it makes no sense not to employ damage control or give heads up when possible. There is no need to make life more difficult than it needs to be.

Agreed, but that's only part of it. There has been a 50-year effort to make self sufficiency the ideal totem of this (and every other) society. Sorry. but I don't perform operations on myself, nor do I feel the need to malke my own clothes, capable or not. But being an island is part of the libvertarian ethos, and its both wrong and stupid. The entire point of a society is sharing the load. If I do somethings well and other things poorly, I should spend my time and effort on what I do well and have others do what I would do poorly.

[Eric the Green]

(06-02-2022, 01:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-01-2022, 02:29 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: while I'm here, the Gen X culture of "figure it out yourself" needs to die. I respect the hell out of people who are able to do this, but I really REALLY hate how normalized it has become. Learning things from experience is a necessary part of life, but part of being a good parent or a good teacher is giving children information in advance....so that they don't have to learn things the hard way like you did. They will get their bumps, bruises and, perhaps, even broken bones from life, but at the same time, it makes no sense not to employ damage control or give heads up when possible. There is no need to make life more difficult than it needs to be.

Agreed, but that's only part of it.  There has been a 50-year effort to make self sufficiency the ideal totem of this (and every other) society.  Sorry. but I don't perform operations on myself, nor do I feel the need to malke my own clothes, capable or not.  But being an island is part of the libvertarian ethos, and its both wrong and stupid.  The entire point of a society is sharing the load.  If I do somethings well and other things poorly, I should spend my time and effort on what I do well and have others do what I would do poorly.

Well said, guys.

[JasonBlack]

(06-02-2022, 02:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well said, guys.

Unfortunately, many American right wingers do not understand that "freedom" and "cooperation" are not antithetical. The day they realize this is the day they become unstoppable.

[Eric the Green]

(06-02-2022, 02:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 02:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well said, guys.

Unfortunately, many American right wingers do not understand that "freedom" and "cooperation" are not antithetical. The day they realize this is the day they become unstoppable.

If they really realize this, though, they will no longer be right-wing.

[JasonBlack]

(06-02-2022, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 02:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 02:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well said, guys.

Unfortunately, many American right wingers do not understand that "freedom" and "cooperation" are not antithetical. The day they realize this is the day they become unstoppable.

If they really realize this, though, they will no longer be right-wing.

According to this, I'm not right wing haha

[Eric the Green]

(06-02-2022, 03:09 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 02:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 02:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well said, guys.

Unfortunately, many American right wingers do not understand that "freedom" and "cooperation" are not antithetical. The day they realize this is the day they become unstoppable.

If they really realize this, though, they will no longer be right-wing.

According to this, I'm not right wing haha

You are probably not a stereotypical right winger. But you love your guns!