Is America great now?

[Virtual ghost]

Well, we will see what happens. As it goes with most life events, it's all well beyond our control or influence. Trump did try to address the impact free trade has on domestic production/employment, but I was never a fan of his strategy. I'd have rather seen a more robust overhaul and enforcement of anti-trust laws to help domestic business, particularly small business, thrive and compete more fairly. Something, anything, to address the problem of crony capitalism- which everyone, left right and center, could get behind. As a political outsider he gave it a shot and came up short, I just hope we can get some more political outsiders elected some day to try again. What I see from the left as far as solutions go is no different from what I see from crony capitalists, they just want to give all the power to the government instead of private institutions, despite the fact that the government would be essentially the same- but worse- at managing such a behemoth of power, as it always has, everywhere, throughout history (authoritarian hell-hole systems being disqualified of course). The same blow to incentive regarding innovation competition and production would apply to government control as it would to crony capitalist control, except there would never be even any possibility for competition against the government, so I consider that the worse path. I'd like to see some system enforced that's closer to the ideals of america's founding, where individuals- small businesses- are allowed and encouraged to thrive. Some system where power remained decentralized, as the founders originally intended. I think that is the original american dream.

This is kinda great on paper but it completely missed in the domains of strategy and history.



In other words towards founding fathers you should have lost ww2, but instead you went into the other direction and in the end you won. Since literally the whole nation worked toward a common goal for the sake of your army and your allies. Without this massive transformation there would simply be a lost cause. After all even like this it was still fairly close call at one point. However today with the alliance of Russia and China you basically have the same problem. How will small business stand up to the China's companies that work for much less, there is more of them, they have financial support of their government as well as Russian oil and nukes. Please explain me how this should work as a counter to them in taking over the third world and all of it's resources ? How will you preserve petro-dollar that is one of the pillars of your entire economy with your approach ? With who you will trade once you lose most of the world with exception of your closest allies ? (many of those are also under question at this point, if anything simply because the deals are better at the east). The sum of all debt in US is around 80.2 Trillion $ at this point and melting this out without access to the most of the world basically means certain economic implosion. Actually all these bad years are basically just the consequences of the loss of influence/impact all over the world.




That was mostly strategy and now History.
From what I get you basically claim that authoritarian governments can't really be innovative, what is strange argument to make. Do you honestly think that either Japan or Germany would resisted you for years that they weren't pretty technologically innovative and practical ? First cruise missile attack in history was done by Germany against UK during ww2. Or how did they gas all those people if they didn't understand chemistry ? The same goes for fueling their tanks and ships. Primitive mind can't build a submarine but towards history books they were quite a pain in the ass with them towards the Allies. On the other hand first man is space was a Soviet, the same goes for the first satellite. Why was US living for decades on alert ? Is it perhaps because USSR found a way how to hit you from the other side of the world ? (what they can still do btw.). Those are just the most iconic inventions but there are thousands and thousand more that were made by authoritarian regimes. If this weren't the case the whole world today would be one big America and that evidently isn't the case. What returns us to the present, based on what I have seen China over the last 30 years increased the value of it's economy for 26 times (2600%) Therefore with that they became the second largest economy in value and they grow fast further. While in practical physical sense they are maybe already the first. After all they made a whole series of domestic high tech products with which they are taking over the world. However they did that while not having any kind of elections or democratic representative system.


The idea that authoritarian system can't be innovative or stable is simply false. Especially now when the various regimes realized that it is possible to merge authoritarianism and consumerism into a very productive mix. Where the state/regime mimics the free market. Another tilt is that education requires more and more time, expertise and cooperation in order to create complex high tech product. What evidently favors the big and complex systems. You just can't improvise smart phone in your backyard or basement from scratch and dirt. Why there is so much talk about China's 5G ? Because it is the most sophisticated one and fairly cheap, plus they are working on 6G. Modern technology and therefore economy simply requires groups to move forward. US never encountered the opponent that has 4 times more people while it is technologically equal or superior. Plus it also has quite a number of powerful allies that are also nuclear powers and rich in resources. Back in a day you had to distort your entire economy so that in combination with Russians you remove one little Hitler/Germany and their local allies from the map. Therefore today if you want to keep global presence and relevance you will need to do even more, since the opponent is much much bigger and sophisticated this time.



As you say " we will see". But if "the founding fathers" is the master plan I am fairly certain that I can guess how this whole saga will end.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Let's be honest, having a decent president isn't going to make America great. In order for that to happen, AMERICANS have to start being better people themselves. For example, Narcissism is becoming the new norm, and that's why so many in government are narcissists. Society promotes and rewards it. People are dickheads. Parents don't teach their kids empathy. Changes need to happen in society, not just presidential elections. People don't want to hear that though because then it means people actually have to take responsibility of what we can control: ourselves and what we try to instill in our children. It's easier for people to sit back and point fingers, blame the presidents. Narcissists aren't born, they're made; but society is promoting the narcissist and being setup in a way where narcissism manifests in people.

Narcissism alone is not a diagnosis btw, it is a description of traits. In order for someone to be diagnosed with NPD they have to actually say "this creates problems in my life." You can't diagnose someone with a disorder for being dicks, there has to be an experience of distress from the narcissistic traits, and often a narcissist individual will actually say they're fine with being as they are, meaning they can't be diagnosed with NPD. Thus, calling someone narcissistic is similar to saying someone is stubborn.

 

[anticlimatic]

This is kinda great on paper but it completely missed in the domains of strategy and history.



In other words towards founding fathers you should have lost ww2, but instead you went into the other direction and in the end you won. Since literally the whole nation worked toward a common goal for the sake of your army and your allies. Without this massive transformation there would simply be a lost cause. After all even like this it was still fairly close call at one point. However today with the alliance of Russia and China you basically have the same problem. How will small business stand up to the China's companies that work for much less, there is more of them, they have financial support of their government as well as Russian oil and nukes. Please explain me how this should work as a counter to them in taking over the third world and all of it's resources ? How will you preserve petro-dollar that is one of the pillars of your entire economy with your approach ? With who you will trade once you lose most of the world with exception of your closest allies ? (many of those are also under question at this point, if anything simply because the deals are better at the east). The sum of all debt in US is around 80.2 Trillion $ at this point and melting this out without access to the most of the world basically means certain economic implosion. Actually all these bad years are basically just the consequences of the loss of influence/impact all over the world.




That was mostly strategy and now History.
From what I get you basically claim that authoritarian governments can't really be innovative, what is strange argument to make. Do you honestly think that either Japan or Germany would resisted you for years that they weren't pretty technologically innovative and practical ? First cruise missile attack in history was done by Germany against UK during ww2. Or how did they gas all those people if they didn't understand chemistry ? The same goes for fueling their tanks and ships. Primitive mind can't build a submarine but towards history books they were quite a pain in the ass with them towards the Allies. On the other hand first man is space was a Soviet, the same goes for the first satellite. Why was US living for decades on alert ? Is it perhaps because USSR found a way how to hit you from the other side of the world ? (what they can still do btw.). Those are just the most iconic inventions but there are thousands and thousand more that were made by authoritarian regimes. If this weren't the case the whole world today would be one big America and that evidently isn't the case. What returns us to the present, based on what I have seen China over the last 30 years increased the value of it's economy for 26 times (2600%) Therefore with that they became the second largest economy in value and they grow fast further. While in practical physical sense they are maybe already the first. After all they made a whole series of domestic high tech products with which they are taking over the world. However they did that while not having any kind of elections or democratic representative system.


The idea that authoritarian system can't be innovative or stable is simply false. Especially now when the various regimes realized that it is possible to merge authoritarianism and consumerism into a very productive mix. Where the state/regime mimics the free market. Another tilt is that education requires more and more time, expertise and cooperation in order to create complex high tech product. What evidently favors the big and complex systems. You just can't improvise smart phone in your backyard or basement from scratch and dirt. Why there is so much talk about China's 5G ? Because it is the most sophisticated one and fairly cheap, plus they are working on 6G. Modern technology and therefore economy simply requires groups to move forward. US never encountered the opponent that has 4 times more people while it is technologically equal or superior. Plus it also has quite a number of powerful allies that are also nuclear powers and rich in resources. Back in a day you had to distort your entire economy so that in combination with Russians you remove one little Hitler/Germany and their local allies from the map. Therefore today if you want to keep global presence and relevance you will need to do even more, since the opponent is much much bigger and sophisticated this time.



As you say " we will see". But if "the founding fathers" is the master plan I am fairly certain that I can guess how this whole saga will end.

Sorry, I might not have been clear. I meant to imply that authoritarian states CAN be innovative/productive/etc, but that I wanted to disqualify them as an option because of how little I (or probably anyone) would actually like to live in one (even if the reason for the average person for not liking them is boredom). Authoritarian success/spread is what I perceive as the enemy, and turning the US into such a state is something I see as radically counter productive- whether it comes from the left or the right (right now, it's coming from the left, but that could change to the other direction if leftist authoritarianism is as much of a rejected failure as I imagine it will be, and right wing authoritarianism is used as blowback).

International trade is well beyond my pay grade as a humble technician, so I can't really speak competently with you about that. Especially with too many unknown variables to even make short term predictions. Hell, Russia and China might go to war with each other, who knows. I don't believe in the Ni/Te model of imagining all possible futures (except the one that actually ends up transpiring) and building a plan to accommodate for those fantasies. I prefer a more introspective strategy of investing in the most objectively healthy system in and of itself with the (typical of IXTPs) faith that a good and sturdy system can ultimately overcome most threats, both preconceived ones and the ones that aren't seen coming.

Most small businesses in America don't involve peddling crap from China- in fact those are almost exclusively big businesses, like Walmart and all the big strip-mall chains. This is another reason why I am so big into small businesses. Many don't pedal crap at all, like the trade services (painters, builders, electricians, etc), or a thousand other things. Chinese goods are cheap, but poorly made, and most americans prefer goods from better countries like Japan and Germany.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Sorry, I might not have been clear. I meant to imply that authoritarian states CAN be innovative/productive/etc, but that I wanted to disqualify them as an option because of how little I (or probably anyone) would actually like to live in one (even if the reason for the average person for not liking them is boredom). Authoritarian success/spread is what I perceive as the enemy, and turning the US into such a state is something I see as radically counter productive- whether it comes from the left or the right (right now, it's coming from the left, but that could change to the other direction if leftist authoritarianism is as much of a rejected failure as I imagine it will be, and right wing authoritarianism is used as blowback).

International trade is well beyond my pay grade as a humble technician, so I can't really speak competently with you about that. Especially with too many unknown variables to even make short term predictions. Hell, Russia and China might go to war with each other, who knows. I don't believe in the Ni/Te model of imagining all possible futures (except the one that actually ends up transpiring) and building a plan to accommodate for those fantasies. I prefer a more introspective strategy of investing in the most objectively healthy system in and of itself with the (typical of IXTPs) faith that a good and sturdy system can ultimately overcome most threats, both preconceived ones and the ones that aren't seen coming.

Most small businesses in America don't involve peddling crap from China- in fact those are almost exclusively big businesses, like Walmart and all the big strip-mall chains. This is another reason why I am so big into small businesses. Many don't pedal crap at all, like the trade services (painters, builders, electricians, etc), or a thousand other things. Chinese goods are cheap, but poorly made, and most americans prefer goods from better countries like Japan and Germany.

You would be surprised how many in the world are comfortable with openly authoritarian governments. My entire region is full of those that want to bring back Communism and have nostalgic feelings about it. They celebrate it's holidays, they teach their kids to be like them, they make themed parks on the topic etc. The American idea that everyone alive hates this system is simply false. This is exactly why China has easy time settling here. Down to this day here you can't really run a political campaign on free market stuff. You need to heavily water down the concept to get any visible amount of votes. Social left-right divide exists but economy is pretty heavily to the left. Plus to make things more absurd the main opposition are the people who are doing the same for our Nazi collaborationist government. However in the end China is good for most of the world politicians, China provides material/financial aid while local politicians sell the soul of the country. Although they get to do all kind of corrupt things and games under China since China doesn't care about that as long as they have general control over the area/resources. Therefore China basically allows people to become local little dictators. What is domino effect that should be stopped, even if for the politicians this is quite tempting offer. Plus Russia and China will now go to war, the made the pact exactly since that eases their expansion globally and makes sure they even at home have all the resources. What makes expanding easier.



Regarding small business in US: maybe but they are probably buying that stuff privately. Because towards the numbers in the country someone is evidently buying or reselling plenty of stuff from China. However the real problem isn't directly in US vs. China. The problem is how economic relations are done between "US and other 200 countries" and "China and other 200 countries". As I said: in this sense the whole world is basically one big electoral college where you fight for dominance on various levels. While not ever territory is equally important and there is such a thing as "purple state", that is balance.



Combination of Te and Ni wants to imagine everything possible but then it cuts out what is unlikely by logic. Since Te makes sure that the argument isn't left in the air. While if the argument remains constantly in the air then this is probably something other than this combination.

 

[Lark]

FDR did more to make America great than anyone since, the military industrial complex which is running things has made a balls of things and its just taking too long to die off.

There was plenty of cues to investors and old and new money that health services and medicine would be the next big thing (even before a pandemic) and they didnt jump ship or respond, militarism was just the biggest racket they could imagine.

It seems dumb to me as any clever super power in the future is likely to engage in cyber war and poisoning large, large population centres in ways that resemble disease and are plausibly deniable, at least in the public arena, but politicians and the public are slow on the pick up of stuff like this. They play the same old song until the record breaks, despite the fact the world has moved from vinyl to digital music

The other thing is that I can think of nothing better to weaponize than disease if your target is a society whose illusions about individualism and privilege furnishes them with all sorts of delusions about personal or national exceptionalism that will disable their ability, individually or collectively, to fight it. Disease could give a crap about those things. The whole traditional malthusian kick of believing that death and natural selection are great things and secretly work to the benefit of the political or monied elites and will over look their households like the angel of death did for Moses during the pass over is liable to result in late actions too.

 

[Lark]

You would be surprised how many in the world are comfortable with openly authoritarian governments. My entire region is full of those that want to bring back Communism and have nostalgic feelings about it. They celebrate it's holidays, they teach their kids to be like them, they make themed parks on the topic etc. The American idea that everyone alive hates this system is simply false. This is exactly why China has easy time settling here. Down to this day here you can't really run a political campaign on free market stuff. You need to heavily water down the concept to get any visible amount of votes. Social left-right divide exists but economy is pretty heavily to the left. Plus to make things more absurd the main opposition are the people who are doing the same for our Nazi collaborationist government. However in the end China is good for most of the world politicians, China provides material/financial aid while local politicians sell the soul of the country. Although they get to do all kind of corrupt things and games under China since China doesn't care about that as long as they have general control over the area/resources. Therefore China basically allows people to become local little dictators. What is domino effect that should be stopped, even if for the politicians this is quite tempting offer. Plus Russia and China will now go to war, the made the pact exactly since that eases their expansion globally and makes sure they even at home have all the resources. What makes expanding easier.



Regarding small business in US: maybe but they are probably buying that stuff privately. Because towards the numbers in the country someone is evidently buying or reselling plenty of stuff from China. However the real problem isn't directly in US vs. China. The problem is how economic relations are done between "US and other 200 countries" and "China and other 200 countries". As I said: in this sense the whole world is basically one big electoral college where you fight for dominance on various levels. While not ever territory is equally important and there is such a thing as "purple state", that is balance.



Combination of Te and Ni wants to imagine everything possible but then it cuts out what is unlikely by logic. Since Te makes sure that the argument isn't left in the air. While if the argument remains constantly in the air then this is probably something other than this combination.

No one campaigns on the basis of the free market in the west any more either, not really, sure there's attacks on taxation, public spending (provided its not the military or secret police that's getting defunded) and some vagaries about freedom, which is still some how conflated with keeping the power in the hands of old money, but that's it.

To be honest, the shifts in the anglosphere at least have seen a lot of nationalist and populist ideas which have little to do with libertarianism anymore, its race, its a sort of indignation against any of the niche liberation movements being mobilized. Like I honestly believe all of those moves are about finding a plan B now that the old trojan horse of libertarianism, privatization and free markets is looking pretty tired and privileged old money could be threatened anew.

Libertarianism was only ever the populism of its day, convince everyone that they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, that they've everything in common with the guy in the country club and nothing in the least with the guy cuing up for the soup kitchen. It worked for a bit. Some people still believe it but not as many. It also allowed a lot of oppression to go on beneath the radar as it wasnt the state doing it, so long as it was some private firm or faction it could be largely ignored.

The new tactics arent that much different or better, the whole racial, sectarian and other diversions are all just diversions, it keeps the politicians in the life style they've grown accustomed to and everyone else pays for without ever requiring that they prove themselves as being any good at anything, they've got ideology that underscores their neglect, buffoonery and delusions of grandeur when they do precisely nothing at all.

 

[anticlimatic]

You would be surprised how many in the world are comfortable with openly authoritarian governments. My entire region is full of those that want to bring back Communism and have nostalgic feelings about it. They celebrate it's holidays, they teach their kids to be like them, they make themed parks on the topic etc. The American idea that everyone alive hates this system is simply false. This is exactly why China has easy time settling here. Down to this day here you can't really run a political campaign on free market stuff. You need to heavily water down the concept to get any visible amount of votes. Social left-right divide exists but economy is pretty heavily to the left. Plus to make things more absurd the main opposition are the people who are doing the same for our Nazi collaborationist government. However in the end China is good for most of the world politicians, China provides material/financial aid while local politicians sell the soul of the country. Although they get to do all kind of corrupt things and games under China since China doesn't care about that as long as they have general control over the area/resources. Therefore China basically allows people to become local little dictators. What is domino effect that should be stopped, even if for the politicians this is quite tempting offer. Plus Russia and China will now go to war, the made the pact exactly since that eases their expansion globally and makes sure they even at home have all the resources. What makes expanding easier. Regarding small business in US: maybe but they are probably buying that stuff privately. Because towards the numbers in the country someone is evidently buying or reselling plenty of stuff from China. However the real problem isn't directly in US vs. China. The problem is how economic relations are done between "US and other 200 countries" and "China and other 200 countries". As I said: in this sense the whole world is basically one big electoral college where you fight for dominance on various levels. While not ever territory is equally important and there is such a thing as "purple state", that is balance. Combination of Te and Ni wants to imagine everything possible but then it cuts out what is unlikely by logic. Since Te makes sure that the argument isn't left in the air. While if the argument remains constantly in the air then this is probably something other than this combination.

The idea that everyone hates living in authoritarian systems is not the American ideal- that's a basic fact that the American ideal is predicated upon- the American idea, rooted in Christian doctrine, is that people are ultimately more prosperous and happy in free democratic societies with individual rights that push against the fundamental selfish evils of human nature that are more than willing to abide hosts of atrocities and impoverishment for the sake of a little short term safety. After a century of this idea successfully proving itself worldwide, people have slipped back into their multi-century deep ruts of dark-ages thinking and ceased fighting for it on an ideological level. Accelerating this ideological rot is not something I'm keen on supporting, though most of american acedemia very much is.

The problem with using logic to weed out implausible future scenarios is that too many are plausible. Logic is working against you. Your cerebral ram can't even accomodate all of them at once, so other factors will work to clear out space to think- likely less rational ones, like internal subjective value structures. This is why I find the Ni/Te model of life planning to be inheritly and objectively flawed.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The idea that everyone hates living in authoritarian systems is not the American ideal- that's a basic fact that the American ideal is predicated upon- the American idea, rooted in Christian doctrine, is that people are ultimately more prosperous and happy in free democratic societies with individual rights that push against the fundamental selfish evils of human nature that are more than willing to abide hosts of atrocities and impoverishment for the sake of a little short term safety. After a century of this idea successfully proving itself worldwide, people have slipped back into their multi-century deep ruts of dark-ages thinking and ceased fighting for it on an ideological level. Accelerating this ideological rot is not something I'm keen on supporting, though most of american acedemia very much is.

The problem with using logic to weed out implausible future scenarios is that too many are plausible. Logic is working against you. Your cerebral ram can't even accomodate all of them at once, so other factors will work to clear out space to think- likely less rational ones, like internal subjective value structures. This is why I find the Ni/Te model of life planning to be inheritly and objectively flawed.

Well in my book your fundamental problem is that you have simplistic approach to the idea of social structure. Since not every structure is fundamentally oppressive and dysfunctional. As I said my government saved my life a number of times and it also helped me a number of times. Since it's structure is set in that way. However people should pay attention that the government remains democratic under the foreign influence(s). Not to mention that this influence from abroad can be spread among people even if we don't have a government, in a way that only makes it easier.




Regarding functions:
You can talk about this as much as you want but the fact is that people are running huge corporations and governments through this combination and they aren't failing at everything. There are glitches or even deliberate evil but the fact is that they are pushing through their ideas that are coming to life. While they often even remain standing for a long time, otherwise the world would look pretty differently. But in the end that sorting out is a skill that requires both training and plenty of general competency.

 

[Jaguar]

President Trump won’t agree to accept 2020 election results as Biden leads in polls — ‘I have to see’

America is definitely not doing great, it needs surgery. Hand me a scalpel.

 

[Lark]

The idea that everyone hates living in authoritarian systems is not the American ideal- that's a basic fact that the American ideal is predicated upon- the American idea, rooted in Christian doctrine, is that people are ultimately more prosperous and happy in free democratic societies with individual rights that push against the fundamental selfish evils of human nature that are more than willing to abide hosts of atrocities and impoverishment for the sake of a little short term safety. After a century of this idea successfully proving itself worldwide, people have slipped back into their multi-century deep ruts of dark-ages thinking and ceased fighting for it on an ideological level. Accelerating this ideological rot is not something I'm keen on supporting, though most of american acedemia very much is.

The problem with using logic to weed out implausible future scenarios is that too many are plausible. Logic is working against you. Your cerebral ram can't even accomodate all of them at once, so other factors will work to clear out space to think- likely less rational ones, like internal subjective value structures. This is why I find the Ni/Te model of life planning to be inheritly and objectively flawed.

I'm wondering where you're cutting and pasting this from this time.

The whole idea of it being christian doctrine rather than republicanism and liberalism is odd to begin with, although in keeping with the whole neo-confederate white anglo-saxon protestant traditions revivalism and all, but its straight up historical revisionism.

The idea of this "american way" is some how or some way opposed to "short term safety" which I'm figuring you mean welfare states, is wrong too, if they'd gone with Tom Paine's Agrarian Justice, which aimed at preventing a landed gentry and old money privilege arising in the US as it had with European and British aristocracy, then a welfare state would have been around from an even earlier date.

The whole final paragraph there is just the usual AC becoming grandiose which is kind of a default thing when you are struggling with others disagreeing with your posts.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm wondering where you're cutting and pasting this from this time.

The whole idea of it being christian doctrine rather than republicanism and liberalism is odd to begin with, although in keeping with the whole neo-confederate white anglo-saxon protestant traditions revivalism and all, but its straight up historical revisionism.

The idea of this "american way" is some how or some way opposed to "short term safety" which I'm figuring you mean welfare states, is wrong too, if they'd gone with Tom Paine's Agrarian Justice, which aimed at preventing a landed gentry and old money privilege arising in the US as it had with European and British aristocracy, then a welfare state would have been around from an even earlier date.

The whole final paragraph there is just the usual AC becoming grandiose which is kind of a default thing when you are struggling with others disagreeing with your posts.

In his defense he was probably thinking about protestant stuff. While supposedly Catholics often aren't seen as Christians in US. Downright absurd idea but that is how supposedly is. My country is something like 0.2% protestant and our Christians are quite for social structure.

 

[Lark]

Well in my book your fundamental problem is that you have simplistic approach to the idea of social structure. Since not every structure is fundamentally oppressive and dysfunctional. As I said my government saved my life a number of times and it also helped me a number of times. Since it's structure is set in that way. However people should pay attention that the government remains democratic under the foreign influence(s). Not to mention that this influence from abroad can be spread among people even if we don't have a government, in a way that only makes it easier.




Regarding functions:
You can talk about this as much as you want but the fact is that people are running huge corporations and governments through this combination and they aren't failing at everything. There are glitches or even deliberate evil but the fact is that they are pushing through their ideas that are coming to life. While they often even remain standing for a long time, otherwise the world would look pretty differently. But in the end that sorting out is a skill that requires both training and plenty of general competency.

The whole ignoring corporate crimes and focusing on government flaws is just a tactic, private tyranny is never going to bother private special interests, the government might because its remotely accountable, most of the time and business isnt at all. Unless you believe anything about consumer sovereignty and there's plenty of evidence that's not true.

There's been a lot of publishing, you just need to check out Amazon (not exactly a hot bed of radical publishing), to see how many books are now challenging ideas about debt, ideas rebalancing the thinking about public/state and private firms operating in the economy etc. etc.

Its not even partisan any longer, like its not even about equality or any ideal distribution or anything like that, which would have been the target of conservative criticism in the past but really just highlighting that all the old ideas of self-regulating systems turning private vice into public good are a lot of nonsense.

 

[Jaguar]

While supposedly Catholics often aren't seen as Christians in US. Downright absurd idea but that is how supposedly is.

"I'm a Christian!" is something you might hear from a bullshit artist who wants to con your ass in business. I was raised Catholic but I have yet to hear someone shout "I'm a Catholic!" to convince someone they are trustworthy in business.

 

[ceecee]

In his defense he was probably thinking about protestant stuff. While supposedly Catholics often aren't seen as Christians in US. Downright absurd idea but that is how supposedly is. My country is something like 0.2% protestant and our Christians are quite for social structure.

Yeah I would agree with this. It really depends on where you live in the US though. I grew up in a more heavily Catholic area and I moved to a place almost exclusively Dutch Reformed Calvinist Protestant. I wouldn't say they proselytize per se but they do frequently ask about your church, with the assumption that you attend. I find that and many other things about them to be horrible and incredibly rude. They are pretty vocal about Catholics being Catholics - not Christians. I never pressed further to see what that means as I don't care about their religious opinions of any kind.

 

[Mind Maverick]

"I'm a Christian!" is something you might hear from a bullshit artist who wants to con your ass in business. I was raised Catholic but I have yet to hear someone shout "I'm a Catholic!" to convince someone they are trustworthy in business.

Lol no, they just do some ritualistic shit on Sunday then use it as a cover up for their guilt to do whatever they want instead. Christians, on the other hand, want to sell the "I accept Jesus and thus I'm a good person & therefore Jesus loves you" story.

...I just realized all of the most toxic people I've met have affiliated themselves with Christianity.

 

[Jaguar]

Lol no, they just do some ritualistic shit on Sunday then use it as a cover up for their guilt to do whatever they want instead. Christians, on the other hand, want to sell the "I accept Jesus and thus I'm a good person & therefore Jesus loves you" story.

That was my point, "I'm a Christian!" is what frequently gets said in a huff when someone wants to lather you up to do business with them. Somehow, those jokers think that makes them a good person. I could be flipping through the channels and find someone shouting "I'm a Christian!" for some bullshit reason.

 

[Red Memories]

In his defense he was probably thinking about protestant stuff. While supposedly Catholics often aren't seen as Christians in US. Downright absurd idea but that is how supposedly is. My country is something like 0.2% protestant and our Christians are quite for social structure.

Speaking as someone baptized catholic, many protestants think we are paganistic because our view of saints.

 

[Red Memories]

Also you can be a piece of shit as any or no religion, just as you can be a great person. It's up to you. Not every christian is like that and it's pretty exhausting to be lumped with bigots who use God as an exuse to be assholes. Anyone can take a book and twist words the way they want.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Also you can be a piece of shit as any or no religion, just as you can be a great person. It's up to you. Not every christian is like that and it's pretty exhausting to be lumped with bigots who use God as an exuse to be assholes. Anyone can take a book and twist words the way they want.

Yep. In general though, this is the norm.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The whole ignoring corporate crimes and focusing on government flaws is just a tactic, private tyranny is never going to bother private special interests, the government might because its remotely accountable, most of the time and business isnt at all. Unless you believe anything about consumer sovereignty and there's plenty of evidence that's not true.

There's been a lot of publishing, you just need to check out Amazon (not exactly a hot bed of radical publishing), to see how many books are now challenging ideas about debt, ideas rebalancing the thinking about public/state and private firms operating in the economy etc. etc.

Its not even partisan any longer, like its not even about equality or any ideal distribution or anything like that, which would have been the target of conservative criticism in the past but really just highlighting that all the old ideas of self-regulating systems turning private vice into public good are a lot of nonsense.

Yes, the landscape is changing, which is also one of the reasons why we here are collectively losing interest in many western "beliefs". Publicly westernization simply lost it's charm with everything that it going on. Especially since with the rise of China consumerism is no longer particularly western trait. Actually when Russian state banks took over the spine of our economy few years ago the public was literally *crickets* about this. Since they knew that this spine has to be saved and by big player from outside, since this "spine" makes 20% of GDP every year. Plus they were generally frustrated with how the government and market were getting reorganized/deregulated. However that public silence on this issue was totally deafening if you knew what you are actually watching. But that was the turning point from which our local history went into unexpected direction. Even if the whole thing started as corporate crime that turned into something much bigger. While the spine seems to be doing better from year to year and the people/consumers accepted it in it's current form. What is the ending that has two big stories in it "The state had a success where the private ownership failed" and " Russia saved us from financial meltdown". What is blooper that the west shouldn't have allowed for it's own sake. It is kinda corny to say it but I actually often do wonder what Hillary would have done due to NATO and all that Jazz.



In other words changes in the west/first world have very direct impact on it's position and influence in the world.