The Era of Living Dangerously
Quote:
The world is on edge: On the edge of another financial crisis, another global recession, another bout of extreme weather, another humanitarian disaster, another food crisis, and another round of violence and civil unrest. The world's problems, it seems, are not being solved; they are being recycled with rising -- and disturbing -- rapidity.
If this were a movie, we might borrow a title from yesteryear and call it "The Year of Living Dangerously." But, unfortunately, this is not a movie; and the challenges that we face will not be resolved anytime soon. Our troubles are not cyclical, they are structural. We live in a world that is fundamentally out of balance, and rectifying those imbalances will take years, if not decades, to correct. Welcome to "The Era of Living Dangerously."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert..._b_923423.html
Heh. More correctly, The Era of no Historical Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamG
The lack of knowledge of and appreciation for history tends to make the current generation, the one that preceded it and most Baby Boomers snivel about reality. The Puffington Host excels at that... :D
The World has always been out of balance. Note in the quote provided the extensive use of the word 'another'...
The problem is that many of the rather pampered today want stability and security that have never been and are unlikely to be available regardless of things flaky politicians and 'The Sky IS FALLING' news media and punditidiocy say... :rolleyes:
Same stuff, different day. :wry:
Marx was and still is right...nobdy reads what he really said!
Yves Smith of Naked capitalism explains the Rich People's Propaganda that is the real problem. The Orphans(rich people) want help(tax beaks and bailouts) but it turns out they are Oprpahns because they murdered their parents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=JPa2s-HYuvE
No, he wasn't right. far from it, in fact, he was one of the orphans...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
The Orphans(rich people) want help(tax beaks and bailouts) but it turns out they are Oprpahns because they murdered their parents.
If you really believe that, I got a bridge across Jordan Lake I'll sell you... :D
There are some rich people that want tax breaks and bailouts -- and there are some far from rich people that want no taxes and handouts. Both of those crowds are wrong. Fortunately, there aren't many of them. Most people act like they have some sense and some balance... :wry:
Unfortunately, the governing class (which Marx foolishly thought would behave properly but who never have or do) have not acted properly to restrain the worst instincts of capitalism nor have they have they halted the worst instincts of populism. Government has an obligation to restrain both and it has -- worldwide, not just in the US -- failed to do that. It has tried and will try to pander to both ends and thus will fail at its job of maintaining and fostering sense and balance.
Rich people's propaganda isn't the problem -- nor is Smith's and other's anti-capitalism cant a real problem. Government failure to behave responsibly is a BIG problem and it will never go away. So Marx was way wrong; the less government, the better and both the rich and unrich would have to take care of themselves instead of relying on a government that will generally fail to really take care of either side. :mad:
Not that any of that has the slightest thing to do with the thread...;)
Sure I can. Do it all the time...
but then, I don't hit 'em up for help... ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
You cain't complain about big guvmint, and taxes and then go running to them for orphan help when things don't work out.
That doesn't seem to bother a lot of people... :D
Then there are those of us that are pretty sure the guvmint really cannot afford the cost of doing all that orphan help...
Quote:
We need to get ride of the bridge... it messes up the Bass tournements.;)
Can't have that, I'll sell the Bridge to Bob Jones, he can shorten his commute by zipping across Hillsborough Bay... :wry:
The Year of Living Dangerously
Real news Network interview on is Capitalism dead. Near the end you will here the comment of how we are living dangerously.There is some Marxian analysis in here also on how economics leads to Revolutions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy5iG...&feature=feedu
Capitalism has been around for 5,000 years.
It's not dead -- or even wounded. Humans living dangerously is not new, that's well over 5,000 years old as well -- only the predators and jungles change a bit. :D
Marx, OTOH is dead and though his system and aberrations of it still live, sort of, they're on shaky legs simply because people can be greedy and just won't play fair. Every system of nominal socialism over the last 50 centuries has failed and has generally done so catastrophically but folks will keep trying... :rolleyes:
Those failures are proof that capitalism won't die. Instead of trying to replace it -- which is futile -- great thinkers ought to concentrate on ways to improve it instead of wasting time on something that human foibles will not permit to attain lasting success. :wry:
I never cease to be amazed at the number of folks who want to make frontal assaults instead of figuring out what and where the flaws are and using those as leverage to obtain lasting as opposed to possible temporary improvements. Many of those folks want level playing fields, forgetting the earth has very few level spots and if man makes one, he needs to watch it or Mother earth will unlevel it for him. They also want people to be equal -- that's not going to happen until we can manufacture them. Greed, energy, ambition and ego intertwine in too many ways for perfect or even much improved social equilibrium to ever be attained. Instead of trying to replace a natural tendency with one that is unnatural we should try to assist Mama Nature and do it her way...
Green Beret Economic/Special Warfare Stuff...Part 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I never cease to be amazed at the number of folks who want to make frontal assaults instead of figuring out what and where the flaws are and using those as leverage to obtain lasting as opposed to possible temporary improvements.
I was tempted to say so you agree completely with Marx:eek: But I think you would want a little more detail. So I will break it done in parts. First there were 2 Marx (probably done intentionally by the Commies) There was Marx the economist and Marx the social revolutionary. One wrote On Capitol and the other wrote the Communist Manifesto(which was probably more Engels than Marx,some evidence to that but no real proof).
Some back round on how I came to this conclusion. My main mission in life at the time I joined the 82nd back in 72 was to find the Billy Jack Green Beret manual and to find out what these Green Beret guys really did. I accomplished both reasonably well IMO. When I went through the one minute guerrilla warfare course I had to stay behind for 2 extra days after the problem was over(for reasons I want go into:D) but I spent a great deal of time with a Team Sergeant who had been doing his job since.....a long time. Behind an excellent Fish Camp he drank a lot of beer and I ate a lot of cheeseburgers and drank a lot of coffee. And he told me to read Karl Marx for basic grounding on what is happening in the world and a lot of other things as well. So as soon as I got back to Bragg I beat feet down to the Special Forces bookstore and got a copy of the Commie Manifest but had to go to the Main Post Library to get On Capitol. To very different people wrote those books even though there is some basic commonality in both of them.
So in order to understand the enemy I came away with 3 main rules of Commie Revolutionary Warfare(Living Dangerously). Rule 2 is that the Commies believed the best way to take over a country is to destroy the Economy, this makes Capitalism(capitalism is banking) extremely vulnerable because of our belief that if the Government acts to protect the economic well being of the people we are all turning into Commies by default as opposed to actually stopping the threat from gaining hold in America. As you point out it is out vulnerable flank and they are exploiting it to this day, except now they have religion thrown in with it. End of part 1
Part the Uno noted and agreed wif...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
I was tempted to say so you agree completely with Marx:eek:
With respect to what you quoted, yep, I do. BUT that sin't "completely." :D
Quote:
First there were 2 Marx (probably done intentionally by the Commies) There was Marx the economist and Marx the social revolutionary. One wrote On Capitol and the other wrote the Communist Manifesto(which was probably more Engels than Marx,some evidence to that but no real proof).
Agree it was probably more attributable the guy from the even more wealthy Engels family. While I don't agree with Marx on capital and its evils, he wasn't totally out to lunch economically speaking -- politically, he was just overly hopeful. People can't or won't go that route for very long, greed and generational change get involved...
Quote:
...had to go to the Main Post Library to get On Capitol.
If you'de been there three years earlier, we might have bumped into each other -- I spent a lot of time there... :wry:
Quote:
Rule 2 is that the Commies believed the best way to take over a country is to destroy the Economy, this makes Capitalism(capitalism is banking) extremely vulnerable because of our belief that if the Government acts to protect the economic well being of the people we are all turning into Commies by default as opposed to actually stopping the threat from gaining hold in America. As you point out it is out vulnerable flank and they are exploiting it to this day, except now they have religion thrown in with it. End of part 1
Education. True on the economy and on religion (or strong secularity...) -- and they had success in getting us to harm our own economic system by properly leveraging our flaws.
However, they also spent much time and effort on corrupting the western education systems. Due to our decentralized approach, they had a great deal of success here as was true in the UK. France and Germany with more centralized systems were able to blunt most of the efforts of the KGB et.al. with respect to dimunition of the educational systems. Note that education attack had and has -- and will continue to have -- follow on second, third and more order economic effects as well... :mad:
Ah. However, must the Bakers support the Candle Stick makers? What of the Butchers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ganulv
I think that the notion that the workers should be arguing about who owns the bakery rather than about the size of their slice of the pie is sensible enough.
True -- problem is some workers won't argue who but wish to argue why... :D
Quote:
I have to say that the development of high speed rail and overall infrastructure improvement strike me as better long term bets than ... and credit default swaps.
Can't disagree with the motherhood and apple Pie of infrastructure improvement. The States whose responsibility that is could perhaps do a better job were not excessive income going to the Feds as opposed to the States or were the Feds to pass that excess back down to the States with less social engineering attached. We have plenty of money to do things, the governmental intakes are just terribly skewed and Federal grants and transfers are a woefully inefficient method of papering over that.
As for High Speed Rail, in this country, it makes sense in the Northeast Corridor, Washington to Boston -- other than that, not so much. Distance and empty spaces -- it'll never compete with flying for passenger count no matter how difficult the government makes it for the airlines to compete. Problem of course is that in the corridor and the very few other places where it might be a bit beneficial, construction costs are beyond astronomical. It is a political toy and not a very smart one...
It's not quite as dumb as the CAFE standards but almost.
Speaking of credit default swaps, much of the recent spate thereof was engendered by rent seeking (which Adam and his brethren taught me about fifty years or so ago...) politicians, only nominally non-Marxist (Barney, Bernie et.al. ... :D), tilting the playing field in order to buy votes for selected constituencies and to raise and lower all boats to marginal mediocrity. Add in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- political ploys of the first water with the same goal -- and ol' Karl was a piker...
Quote:
Judging Marx by the Marxists seems as unfair as judging Jesus by the Christians, at least to me. But I confess to a certain fondness for both of those guys. :p
While I'm not particularly enamored of either...
I did not know either of those gentlemen so my judgment must by default be based on their legacies and writings, pro and con, about them -- all of which IMO leave a great deal to be desired based on the number of bodies they strewed about and the rapaciousness and intransigence of their more 'dedicated' followers. In this case, I not only don't share the opinion, I also respectfully disagree with it. Again, that's why there are many manufacturers of automobobils and such -- choices... :wry:
Both those folks also made much of 'equality.' People did not understand 'equality' and thus they've failed to do a decent job of ensuring equality of opportunity while they have tried, quite futilely, wasting untold Billions and much effort, to insure equality of outcome. That has never been achieved and will never be. Nope, both those folks, or, more correctly, their followers, have much to answer for...