Political Chatter

[moonshadow]

... But the real sad part about it (our 98/2% economy of "haves" and "have nots") ... to follow up on my last thought..

... is that this is exactly the society and economy we (the 98%) WANT and ASK FOR! Or sure, we may sit around complain about what the rich elite have, but the fact of the matter is 95% of of the 98% would gladly step over their own mothers to have just a small crumb of of the elites pie. It seems when ever a CEO or big shot so much as smiles in our direction we get all glittery and excited!

I see it all the time at work, and believe me they have an ego the size of the Earth. That's one of the issues I'm grappling with right now. So many people are so quick to stab you in the back, nip at your ankles, and otherwise back bite one another just to "look good" in the eyes of the company. Hell, it's not like we even get any kind of monetary reward for anything really... maybe a pat on the back, an "atta boy!", but that's about it. And the end result is the CEO just makes more money...

That whole incident with me being reported for wearing skirts in my free time, that was nothing more than your typical back biting, bull sh!t that ultimately failed... but it ain't over! The unnamed one responsible will try again, and again, and again, until they can finally succeed in costing me my job. And for what? So they can sit back in their chair... get the pat on the head for getting rid of a trouble making "gay acting" employee. There are other issues too going on (non skirt related) that I can't really elaborate on here... but suffice it to say.... well like I said... a change may be on the order in the coming years...

When you think about it... our modern society as a whole works just like that... only a MUCH bigger version!

I guess it just comes down to "watch your own back"... because ain't nobody else watching it for you.

[bobmoore]

No matter the political system, it will always be abused. Why? Because human nature is corrupt to the core so that almost universally, when political power is gained it is used not for the common good, but for self aggrandizement. Socialism is a siren song that sounds nice, but is a political trap. It is always easy to convince people that they have some sort of natural right to the fruit of someone else's labor, or that there is such a thing as a free lunch. Sorry. It just ain't so. Socialists think they can pick up a turd by the clean end because they hear the song without understanding the words.

[moonshadow]

No matter the political system, it will always be abused. Why? Because human nature is corrupt to the core so that almost universally, when political power is gained it is used not for the common good, but for self aggrandizement. Socialism is a siren song that sounds nice, but is a political trap. It is always easy to convince people that they have some sort of natural right to the fruit of someone else's labor, or that there is such a thing as a free lunch. Sorry. It just ain't so. Socialists think they can pick up a turd by the clean end because they hear the song without understanding the words.

I tend to agree with this. But Bob... consider the point you main that I underlined in your comment... that's a double edged sword...

You're talking to a man (me) who has had quite a few of his labor's "fruits" exploited by many employers, past and present. I'm not saying that as the "administrator of labor" (the employer... if you will) that those at the top should be making minimum wage, nor am I saying that people like me should be making $500k per year. But I believe the problem today is that too few at the top are paying their fair share, and are generally being too stingy with company profits. Whereas people in my income bracket and below may dip from the welfare pot from time to time... those at the top of the chain make their millions off backs like mine.

So yes... to me the idea of 5 units in, and 4 units back, whereas the 1 unit goes to the common good (payroll tax) to help keep roads paved, schools funded, and yes, even help those who need a hand when they are on hard times, sounds MUCH better that a corporate fat cat offering no units, and stealing 10. Fat cat board members actually don't PRODUCE anything, laborer's produce... board members just county money, hell sometimes they even have people count their money for them. All they have to do is relax in one of their summer homes at the beach!

The concept of trickle down economics is largely dead in this nation. We offer up our labor to wall street, they take it, profit off of it, keep the money, pitch us a few crumbs, and then when the corporate tax breaks dry out, ship the jobs overseas to China. I've seen this is action as I watched the demise of Pulaski Virginia as a result of the evaporation of it's manufacturing base. I watched as the newspapers and local powers that be shrugged their shoulders when Pulaski Furniture closed it's doors and moved all of it's operations to China. I watched as they moved ALL of the furniture making equipment and machine out of the plants. Equipment that was purchased on the tax payers dole many years ago. The company that bought out Pulaski Furniture sold all of that equipment and scrapped the rest. They whistled their way to the bank, meanwhile leaving the town in ruins, 10,000 people and no real jobs to speak of, save for the usual retail garbage that passes for "adult employment" these days.

Bob, it killed that town. I watched it go up in smoke. I watched the the riff raff that followed, the housing market that collapsed as a result of it, the fact that the house I paid $47,000 for in 2003 sold for $35,000 last year, the methadone clinics that set up, the buildings on main street that literally collapsed into the road, the schools that shut down and consolidated due to the lack of tax base, the break ins, the violence, the struggling hospitals, the homeless by the rail road tracks. And I left all of that to start over with a company that from all appearances seems to be no better. Pardon me for being cynical, but it disgust, and it ANGERS me that we sit back and ALLOW all of this to happen, and it is sanctioned by the "GOP" (God's ONLY Party). I watched first hand as the wall street establishment that people like my father and the Trumpers idolize destroyed a town that I loved dearly, and made welfare recipients out of good hard working people. And all people talk about is what bathroom to piss in?!?!?! Give me a freaking break!

Seriously.. has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe these bathroom wars are nothing more than a diversion?

Screw the rich, and the political parties they have working for them! I've seen what they have done to MY country!

Read the book "Factory Man" by Beth Macy if you want a real first hand chronicle of "American Capitalism", and the greed that follows.

Edit: Corrected the name of the author of "Factory Man"

[crfriend]

Socialism, as a be all and end all, is doomed to failure because of human nature -- and most especially the nature of the most competitive and greedy. But without some tenets of Socialism, what we're left with is Laissez-faire Capitalism which is also a failure -- for precisely the same reason. A balance needs to be struck to allow those who work hardest to enjoy the fruits of their labours and to also keep the most competitive and greedy from running rough-shod over the rest of the populace. Some level of altruism is critical to a society's survival; without that, the society is doomed to failure -- frequently spectacularly (violent and bloody revolutions are one such spectacle, but so is overt violent dominance by the power elite against the vast mass of citizenry). Russia, and, arguably the USA now, both exhibit that lack of empathy and altruism, and both (functionally-identical) systems are being gamed for the sole benefit of the power-elite and to the detriment (as "collateral damage") of the populace as a whole.

At issue are not the concepts of either Socialism or Capitalism, it's the application of the extreme forms of either because, unrestrained, both systems tend to produce really dreadful results for the overwhelming bulk of the populations living under them. "Trickle-down economics" (Laissez-faire Capitalism) has demonstrably been proved a failure in the USA, and this can be verified by any number of statistical means. But Central-Command Economies (dogmatic Socialist states) run into the same sorts of problems as they're rather easier to game than free-for-all Capitalism. The key is restraint and regulation to at least keep the level of outright exploitation within tolerable levels. Recall that humans -- and some other animals -- form societies for a reason, and a social structure is one of the few things that separates humans from, say, chimpanzees. A fully-functioning society is able to grow and do things vastly better than a horde of individual actors. We need to move beyond "to the victor go all the spoils" which, put crassly, is little more than the law of the jungle. We're headed in the wrong direction.

[Judah14]

Based on the posts here, the Philippines would theoretically have a good form of government as politicians are more or less center-right or center-left if it weren't for rampant corruption. Not to mention numerous cultural differences as well.

[Caultron]

I call it capitalism vs. democracy (rather than socialism) but yes, there needs to be a balance between the two.

But this has been offset recently by corporations and the very wealthy being able to buy elections and politicians.

[crfriend]

I call it capitalism vs. democracy (rather than socialism) but yes, there needs to be a balance between the two.

I use the term "socialism" because that includes various economic tenets that are not well dealt with by the term "democracy". Democracy is all well and good -- and rather rarely used, just about the last bastion being the New England style Town Meeting (which is rapidly becoming obsolete). The USA was deliberately structured as a republic (largely based on Rome, which is why the US President has powers that mirror those of a Roman Emperor (after the Republic mutated into an Empire)) -- not as a democracy. The last flowering of large-scale democracy was in Hellenic-era Athens; everything since has been various monarchies, autocracies, empires, republics, and oligarchies with a smattering of other experiments thrown in for seasoning.

But this has been offset recently by corporations and the very wealthy being able to buy elections and politicians.

This has always been the case, but the fairly-recent loss of any concept of ethical behaviour by the elite class engenders abuses that would make the Robber Barons of the late 19th Century blush. It's the Law of the Jungle now, and there are no longer any restraints on the lions (actually lionesses -- they do all the heavy lifting) so it's become a feeding frenzy to see who can hoard the most by grabbing it from those "lower down the food chain".

Note that even pure democracies can be subverted; this comes about by suppressing the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. If one faction can gain control of the dissemination of knowledge and ideas the democracy will surely fall as there are no tools available to the electorate to cogently debate things. Bringing down republics is child's-play.

[Caultron]

[ use the term "socialism" because that includes various economic tenets that are not well dealt with by the term "democracy"...

Semantics, but OK. The objective is to give the 99% strength in numbers that balances the econmic strength of the 1%.

...the fairly-recent loss of any concept of ethical behaviour by the elite class engenders abuses that would make the Robber Barons of the late 19th Century blush...

Yes, exactly.

...If one faction can gain control of the dissemination of knowledge and ideas the democracy will surely fall as there are no tools available to the electorate to cogently debate things...

The Internet can be a countervailing source of information. Some people even give it credit for toppling the USSR. I'm not sure the Internet was the whole reason but without it, the Soviet Union couldn't keep up economically with the rest of the world, and with it they couldn't control the flow of information to the masses.

China has tight restrictions on Internet access outside the country, and North Korea bans it except for high-ranking government officials.

[moonshadow]

Anyone else notice we've got two separate political threads going about the same thing?

[dillon]

Anyone else notice we've got two separate political threads going about the same thing?

I post only in the ones that are in vastly different forum topics...

[moonshadow]

Anyone else notice we've got two separate political threads going about the same thing?

I post only in the ones that are in vastly different forum topics...

I was thinking we might steer this one into skirt addictions!

[Caultron]

Anyone else notice we've got two separate political threads going about the same thing?

(raises hand)

[Jim]

What concerns me is that so many people want America to follow the same disastrous socialist path that has crippled every society that has ever tried it. Sanders is a Socialist, with unicorn fart ideas about where wealth and production come from.

The original Pilgrim colony was set up as socialist, and they nearly starved to death because no one was willing to work only to have his labor be given to the lazy. Once the Compact was changed to provide for individual industry, the Colony flourished.

Sanders "thinking" is mist, nothing more. It alarms me that so many see only the glitter on the gilded pig of socialism, and ignore the stench the hog invariably produces.

The word "socialist" means so many different things. Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, and to him that means similar to the European countries that are financially flourishing. Look at the actual programs being proposed and see how such things are doing elsewhere.

[Caultron]

What concerns me is that so many people want America to follow the same disastrous socialist path that has crippled every society that has ever tried it...

If you've ever studied economics, you should try reading, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," by Thomas Piketty.

If yiu haven't, here's a summary. Pikkety studied every economy he could find for which relevant data was available and concluded that the rich really do get richer.

Specifically, he observed that r, the rate of return on investment, is usually greater than g, the rate of return on investments. So r>g. There are various reasons for this but one is that people with money to invest only choose investments that will return greater then the rate of economic growth. Like, if inflation is running 4%, why would you invest in something that only paid 2%?

But that means that if the economy is $100 trillion a year, and it goes up 2% to $102 trillion, the wealthy will get 5% (5 trillion) and everyone else will have to split the remaining $97 trillion.

So every year the 99% end up with less and less.

Now, if you're in the 1%, all this is fine. You like being richer. But year by year, everyone else is living worse and worse and eventually they get pissed about it.

Historically, this tends to be solved by one of two solutions: war or rebellion. War flattens the country, destroys all the wealth, and makes everyone start over. Revolutions depose the rich and forcibly distribute their assets.

Virtually all US economic growth since 2008 has gone to the top 1%. And so now we see people espousing political outsiders like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Trump would be catastrophic and, being part of the Republican party, no solution to the uneven-distribution-of-wealth problem.

Bernie Sanders would be the most frustrated guy on the planet with a Congress no more cooperative than the current Republicans vs. Obama.

Hopefully, Hillary can adopt enough of Bernie's agenda to gain his support, get elected, bring in a Democratic House and Senate on her coattails, and nominate a friendly Supreme Court majority. But the chances of getting all of that are slim to none. I just hope we can get enough.

[crfriend]

So every year the 99% end up with less and less.

Worse is that the economic elite can use their clout to game the entire system to their advantage. Note the inversion of the tax-rates since the Reagan administration between earned and unearned income. The working class who actually count on their wages pay a vastly higher rate of tax on those wages than the elites who make their nut mainly on their gambling (a not-so-polite term for "investing") or real-estate holdings. The nation is actually actively penalising folks who work for a living. If we look at what the rates were during the reasonably prosperous post- World War II ear and today, things look really bad for the bottom 99.95% of the populace.

Also, once one gets up into a certain bracket, there exist enough assets that it becomes possible -- legally -- to make them essentially disappear to avoid paying tax altogether. This means that the top 0,05% and assorted corporations (GE, for instance, prides itself in paying no tax to the US) pay nothing to support the system that they're actively gaming and leave that support to the bottom 99.95% which is why the country can't fix its decaying infrastructure. There's no money, which is sort of odd considering that the US is widely regarded as the most prosperous country on the planet.

Historically, this tends to be solved by one of two solutions: war or rebellion. War flattens the country, destroys all the wealth, and makes everyone start over. Revolutions depose the rich and forcibly distribute their assets.

I would posit that revolution in the United States is impossible. The security apparatus in the US is too robust and omnipresent for such a movement to gain any ground. Even the relatively innocuous "Occupy" movement got pepper-sprayed and gassed (and likely, although unreported, worse) into oblivion -- and they weren't even violent.

Virtually all US economic growth since 2008 has gone to the top 1%.

And the rate of that concentration of wealth is increasing almost exponentially. Picketty admits his numbers are incomplete insofar as the top 1% is entirely opaque, but if one looks at the wealth-distribution curve as it approaches that 1% mark it's pretty easy to extrapolate where virtually all the wealth is going; the curve is exponential towards the top. This is the genesis of my 0,05% ballpark guess -- probably fewer than 1,000 extremely powerful families with deep dynastic wealth now being run by ruthless, amoral, and entitled brats. Donald Trump is merely stinking rich by comparison.

I see another 8 years of Dubya -- this time a cross-dressed one in male drag. What a lovely vision of the future.