Is America great now?

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Is America great now?

No, and it wasn't before, either.

 

[Lark]

In all seriousness, when will you know? How will you know?

 

[Virtual ghost]

You're right that Trump does not remind me personally of an authoritarian dictator, but I can't tell anyone who does that they are wrong to feel that way, because everyone has a right to their own opinion and perspective. The fact is, that he is an elected official whose term will expire either this year or in a few more, and then there will be another. No American- conservative or otherwise- would tolerate anything less.

There is a very dangerous movement in this country, however, to rebrand American history completely, and consider western values themselves- inherit human rights to life liberty property and the pursuit of happiness- as toxic and "evil" (or at the very least "not great") despite those rights being the cornerstone of almost all human progress since the Roman Empire began its decline.

If the balance of powers is thrown off kilter enough to transform this nation into something new (exactly what the left in the US is now trying to do, which is a first for our country- something quite new. Prior to this both political sides of the US worked within and respected the system) what kind of consequences do you think that would have?

We supported your independence in 92. What do you think would happen globally if the US military for the most part disappeared- it's funds redirected to give Americans healthcare and other entitlements?

No, you did not support our independence, you only did that once the original plan failed. Which was to keep our federal Communist government in power due to cold war ties.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 713


In other words security council where US has a power of veto unanimously passed the resolution in which it is forbidden to do weapon sales to us. Even if the federal red army was ripping through the country. Therefore only after we pulled out a miracle, bough weapons illegally and stolen some from the federal army the world started to change it's opinion. Plus I think everyone here knows which party gave the administration that was in office during 91. when this resolution was made. The same goes for who became president after that. when relations took off. Due to convenience we are overlooking this "little incident" but our independence wasn't really the original plan. But even with this you left this fire burning, even if you could have ended it over a weekend at the time and probably even without firing a shoot. Especially since the cold war just ended. Not to mention later plan that we basically give up on our occupied zones that are 30% of the country. Therefore please don't go here, in this case you aren't the saints.



Liberty is perfectly fine however I just don't see US as a place that is super advanced in this trait and it surely isn't as much as it claims (when compared with some other countries). In my book now one half of the country simply wants to nudge some things to help solve some underlying problems. Which are objectively dragging on for decades or even centuries. However in that movement there are some people who are so depressed that they kinda lost it. But I just don't see fundamental rebranding of the country in all this. While on the other hand you can't stay competitive globally if you don't advance things with time, sometimes even fundamentally. This is especially because others are often changing and evolving much faster. For this reason the era of 100% static values based system is generally over. I mean your government is just too slow and often too out of touch with reality. What evidently needs to change, for the sake of the country itself.




Regarding military budget, that isn't hard.
Due to nuclear weapons you can't really be invaded, so that is a great foundation. When the world was developing heavily over the last 25 years you could have diverted more money into various developments instead of military, since that would create bigger economy on the long run. This is exactly why you are often lagging these days or struggle with problems that are coming at you. Since you skipped this by good margin while others didn't this much. Also I explained on the forum nicely a number of times why single payer style healthcare is cheaper than what you have, so that wouldn't really effect the army if organized well (basically it kills the middle man, the insurance companies). Also you could have expected/required more help from your allies in some situations. You don't have to waste money of obviously pointless interventions, intervene when it is really important. Over the years it was probably possible to rationalize military costs by 10-15% without actually losing anything. Having more mobile army would greatly reduce number of bases that cost a fair amount of money. In my book you can have both decent military and socialized healthcare if you really want that. Most democracies manage in achieving that.

 

[anticlimatic]

No, you did not support our independence, you only did that once the original plan failed. Which was to keep our federal Communist government in power due to cold war ties.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 713


In other words security council where US has a power of veto unanimously passed the resolution in which it is forbidden to do weapon sales to us. Even if the federal red army was ripping through the country. Therefore only after we pulled out a miracle, bough weapons illegally and stolen some from the federal army the world started to change it's opinion. Plus I think everyone here knows which party gave the administration that was in office during 91. when this resolution was made. The same goes for who became president after that. when relations took off. Due to convenience we are overlooking this "little incident" but our independence wasn't really the original plan. But even with this you left this fire burning, even if you could have ended it over a weekend at the time and probably even without firing a shoot. Especially since the cold war just ended. Not to mention later plan that we basically give up on our occupied zones that are 30% of the country. Therefore please don't go here, in this case you aren't the saints.



Liberty is perfectly fine however I just don't see US as a place that is super advanced in this trait and it surely isn't as much as it claims (when compared with some other countries). In my book now one half of the country simply wants to nudge some things to help solve some underlying problems. Which are objectively dragging on for decades or even centuries. However in that movement there are some people who are so depressed that they kinda lost it. But I just don't see fundamental rebranding of the country in all this. While on the other hand you can't stay competitive globally if you don't advance things with time, sometimes even fundamentally. This is especially because others are often changing and evolving much faster. For this reason the era of 100% static values based system is generally over. I mean your government is just too slow and often too out of touch with reality. What evidently needs to change, for the sake of the country itself.




Regarding military budget, that isn't hard.
Due to nuclear weapons you can't really be invaded, so that is a great foundation. When the world was developing heavily over the last 25 years you could have diverted more money into various developments instead of military, since that would create bigger economy on the long run. This is exactly why you are often lagging these days or struggle with problems that are coming at you. Since you skipped this by good margin while others didn't this much. Also I explained on the forum nicely a number of times why single payer style healthcare is cheaper than what you have, so that wouldn't really effect the army if organized well (basically it kills the middle man, the insurance companies). Also you could have expected/required more help from your allies in some situations. You don't have to waste money of obviously pointless interventions, intervene when it is really important. Over the years it was probably possible to rationalize military costs by 10-15% without actually losing anything. Having more mobile army would greatly reduce number of bases that cost a fair amount of money. In my book you can have both decent military and socialized healthcare if you really want that. Most democracies manage in achieving that.

None of this changes the fact that the US is your most important military ally, spending millions of our own tax dollars (money I personally contribute to, through my own labor, with every paycheck) every year on training and equipment for you, and it was ultimately the US that stepped up in '95 to broker a peace agreement and end the ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, and routine civilian massacres that had been happening since we initially failed to prevent them with an arms embargo (and, regarding that embargo, the US was the first to abandon it- despite protestations from France, England, and other NATO countries that had troops on the ground at the time). Clinton was at the helm for that one, commanding a massive cache of wealth the US had accumulated from the tech boom, thanks to its innovation and free market capitalism, so make no mistake- it is not "the left" that is and has benefited your country, it is all of us- the US as a whole. You're welcome. Don't mention it.

Liberty has been on the decline in the west for some time now, as it's somewhat antithetical to human nature. Most people would prefer to be a safe follower than a risk-taking independent, but risk-taking independence is the ultimate american heritage, preceding and enabling the Founding itself (which preceded and enabled a global push for democracy that lifted most of the world out of poverty). When there are too many dependents (followers; dependent on other people's systems and ideas), and not enough independents, human nature sinks the species back into the totalitarian dark ages. Technology is not what upholds modern civilization- it is just another product of that which does uphold it, namely the constant struggle to combat true human nature- a struggle whose success was pioneered by the US, and is now under threat of the slow creep backwards.

"Progressives," ironically, have zero inclinations towards progress- particularly the progress the US has made in it's short lifetime- and instead are only interested in undoing progress, under the fantasy that a magical utopia will spring up in its absence (predicated upon the delusion that human nature is "good"- which I believe is predicated upon the delusion that technology is a cause, and not an effect, of civilization). Gridlock (the slowness of the US government) is a feature of the system- not a bug. It's intended to preserve the balance of powers. Efforts to work around it- to cram down an agenda against half of the country's will- is pouring gasoline on a fire. The internet has reduced people's attention spans and heightened expectations for immediate gratification, but that doesn't make it healthy. Or wise.

 

[Virtual ghost]

None of this changes the fact that the US is your most important military ally, spending millions of our own tax dollars (money I personally contribute to, through my own labor, with every paycheck) every year on training and equipment for you, and it was ultimately the US that stepped up in '95 to broker a peace agreement and end the ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, and routine civilian massacres that had been happening since we initially failed to prevent them with an arms embargo (and, regarding that embargo, the US was the first to abandon it- despite protestations from France, England, and other NATO countries that had troops on the ground at the time). Clinton was at the helm for that one, commanding a massive cache of wealth the US had accumulated from the tech boom, thanks to its innovation and free market capitalism, so make no mistake- it is not "the left" that is and has benefited your country, it is all of us- the US as a whole. You're welcome. Don't mention it.

Liberty has been on the decline in the west for some time now, as it's somewhat antithetical to human nature. Most people would prefer to be a safe follower than a risk-taking independent, but risk-taking independence is the ultimate american heritage, preceding and enabling the Founding itself (which preceded and enabled a global push for democracy that lifted most of the world out of poverty). When there are too many dependents (followers; dependent on other people's systems and ideas), and not enough independents, human nature sinks the species back into the totalitarian dark ages. Technology is not what upholds modern civilization- it is just another product of that which does uphold it, namely the constant struggle to combat true human nature- a struggle whose success was pioneered by the US, and is now under threat of the slow creep backwards.

"Progressives," ironically, have zero inclinations towards progress- particularly the progress the US has made in it's short lifetime- and instead are only interested in undoing progress, under the fantasy that a magical utopia will spring up in its absence (predicated upon the delusion that human nature is "good"- which I believe is predicated upon the delusion that technology is a cause, and not an effect, of civilization).

Well, now you are our most important military ally but the road was much more rocky than it should have been (although at this point this is possibly EU if you count that as a country). Plus even that final peace agreement that you mentioned decimated our people in Bosnia that toward this deal have a trouble in electing their own officials and therefore they are fading as a population. Even today that is still very active problem which US doesn't really want to touch. In this whole topic there are even more problems but I will leave that be. You brought this up and I simply trying to explain that things aren't really rosy in this particular case, even if I wouldn't paint myself as US hater.




For me the fundamental problem here is that what you call freedom for me is subtle totalitarianism in many cases. Although we are both probably using "totalitarianism" too much as a word. For me what you call free market is still a structure that controls people's lives and often not in a way that is positive. Therefore even that is power that needs certain limitations. Since otherwise you get accumulation of wealth and with that accumulation of power (what is basically what happened US in the end). Therefore for me there aren't really independent things in the mix, for me that is what is really a phantasy. Especially in the modern globalized world where we are all running out of space and resources. That is why I prefer structure since that is perhaps the only way to control this mess that is flooding in. While education needs to last longer and longer for each generation to fulfill it's purpose. For me respecting structure and being a 24/7 doormat are simply two different things, they can come in one package but they don't have to. Although in US it is indeed more likely that they do. For me real hero will fix the structure instead of pretending to be some kind of a independent.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There is a very dangerous movement in this country, however, to rebrand American history completely, and consider western values themselves- inherit human rights to life liberty property and the pursuit of happiness- as toxic and "evil" (or at the very least "not great") despite those rights being the cornerstone of almost all human progress since the Roman Empire began its decline.

Do you believe in natural law? What is your non-religious basis for those values? If you don't like having your beliefs questioned like that, it's ok. I can back down.

In all seriousness, when will you know? How will you know?

Faith, my child. Only through faith can thou knowest that the Founding was not in vain.

 

[anticlimatic]

For me the fundamental problem here is that what you call freedom for me is subtle totalitarianism in many cases. Although we are both probably using "totalitarianism" too much as a word. For me what you call free market is still a structure that controls people's lives and often not in a way that is positive. Therefore even that is power that needs certain limitations. Since otherwise you get accumulation of wealth and with that accumulation of power (what is basically what happened US in the end). Therefore for me there aren't really independent things in the mix, for me that is what is really a phantasy. Especially in the modern globalized world where we are all running out of space and resources. That is why I prefer structure since that is perhaps the only way to control this mess that is flooding in. While education needs to last longer and longer for each generation to fulfill it's purpose. For me respecting structure and being a 24/7 doormat are simply two different things, they can come in one package but they don't have to. Although in US it is indeed more likely that they do. For me real hero will fix the structure instead of pretending to be some kind of a independent.

Well the conservative argument is that more independence would fix the structure, or rather that's the libertarian argument- and it would, indeed, if more people in the US even had the capability of being independent (independent minded, financially independent, etc). Sadly Americans (and not just Americans) have been slowly conditioned, through poor social/family environments and poor education/indoctrination, away from being independent- taught instead to be good little followers of other people's rules and other people's systems. I believe in the power of the individual, driven by creativity, and think very little of group efforts. Elon Musk is a good example of someone I admire in this context. Individuality is the best road to creating something of value, and value is wealth.

The biggest error in the critique of capitalism is the idea that wealth is a zero sum game. It's not. Money is simply value, quantified- and value can be generated by human beings from nothing. As meaning is inherently created from meaningless elements, value is created from valueless elements. This means that there is not one large pre-created pot of value that can only be shuffled around, the way that people think when they talk about wealth and power structures in America. Everybody can create it, therefore everyone can achieve prosperity of their own making- so long as they are granted the freedom to do so. That is the type of freedom that suits me best, though I do realize that objective freedom is impossible. It's inherently a paradox. Every freedom is paired with an opposing restriction. So in that, it all comes down to preference.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Sadly Americans (and not just Americans) have been slowly conditioned, through poor social/family environments and poor education/indoctrination, away from being independent- taught instead to be good little followers of other people's rules and other people's systems.

Indeed. One can just imagine the people who panic at the idea of defunding the police, and seem uncomfortable when faced with the possible absence of coercive force to actually enforce the authority of the state.

 

[anticlimatic]

Indeed. One can just imagine the people who panic at the idea of defunding the police, and seem uncomfortable when faced with the possible absence of coercive force to actually enforce the authority of the state.

The grownups are talking.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The grownups are talking.

I just felt like calling out all the faux-libertarian points you were making. Carry on.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well the conservative argument is that more independence would fix the structure, or rather that's the libertarian argument- and it would, indeed, if more people in the US even had the capability of being independent (independent minded, financially independent, etc). Sadly Americans (and not just Americans) have been slowly conditioned, through poor social/family environments and poor education/indoctrination, away from being independent- taught instead to be good little followers of other people's rules and other people's systems. I believe in the power of the individual, driven by creativity, and think very little of group efforts. Elon Musk is a good example of someone I admire in this context. Individuality is the best road to creating something of value, and value is wealth.

The biggest error in the critique of capitalism is the idea that wealth is a zero sum game. It's not. Money is simply value, quantified- and value can be generated by human beings from nothing. As meaning is inherently created from meaningless elements, value is created from valueless elements. This means that there is not one large pre-created pot of value that can only be shuffled around, the way that people think when they talk about wealth and power structures in America. Everybody can create it, therefore everyone can achieve prosperity of their own making- so long as they are granted the freedom to do so. That is the type of freedom that suits me best, though I do realize that objective freedom is impossible. It's inherently a paradox. Every freedom is paired with an opposing restriction. So in that, it all comes down to preference.

Yes, that would be a conservative/libertarian argument but in my book this doesn't really stand as practical idea. As a theory this is good but in practice there are problems. For example why are people getting less independent ? Since this market "game" created clear winners and losers and through that it created the accumulation of wealth I was talking. Therefore for me all that you see around you is basically just inevitable outcome of what you are arguing for. Some people became super wealthy through the market and deregulation and they took over the government, media, culture ... etc. On the other hand who mass exported jobs to China ? Private business owners that wanted 300% profit margin and which overlooked that by doing this to this scale they will blow up the country from the inside. While others became boot lickers in order to earn money for most basic living, since the Chinese are working for 100$ a month and therefore working class lost pretty much all of their cards. This is exactly why Trump got elected but after this many years in the office it seems that this wouldn't turn around for the people. Especially since China used the profit to globally expand and now perhaps all democracies together will not be able to contain it. What basically leads to implosion of everything you are arguing for. Actually the number one reason why I am open minded about the idea that this pandemic is perhaps "bio-terrorism" is that this kind of a pandemic completely blows up the independence argument/dynamic. Your entire logic is build on idea that there will not be big pressures from abroad, that where will not be large natural disasters or pandemics, that natural resources are unlimited, etc. Since that is the logic of colonizing the North America. However most of the world isn't North America and it is already full of of people. That is why I am constantly saying that in my book your side is out of date.

 

[Lark]

I just felt like calling out all the faux-libertarian points you were making. Carry on.

Its not tyranny if its privatized. This is the philosophy of the later day capitalists, its not surprising that its also the philosophy of the slave owners and plantations of former times either.

The defunding of the police is a ridiculous idea, a convergence of left idealism and this same capitalist mantra, defunding the tax funded service does not mean the funding of any private security is effected at all and its not likely to be any more accountable than the tax funded one, less likely to be accountable I would have thought.

 

[ceecee]

Yes, that would be a conservative/libertarian argument but in my book this doesn't really stand as practical idea. As a theory this is good but in practice there are problems. For example why are people getting less independent ? Since this market "game" created clear winners and losers and through that it created the accumulation of wealth I was talking. Therefore for me all that you see around you is basically just inevitable outcome of what you are arguing for. Some people became super wealthy through the market and deregulation and they took over the government, media, culture ... etc. On the other hand who mass exported jobs to China ? Private business owners that wanted 300% profit margin and which overlooked that by doing this to this scale they will blow up the country from the inside. While others became boot lickers in order to earn money for most basic living, since the Chinese are working for 100$ a month and therefore working class lost pretty much all of their cards. This is exactly why Trump got elected but after this many years in the office it seems that this wouldn't turn around for the people. Especially since China used the profit to globally expand and now perhaps all democracies together will not be able to contain it. What basically leads to implosion of everything you are arguing for. Actually the number one reason why I am open minded about the idea that this pandemic is perhaps "bio-terrorism" is that this kind of a pandemic completely blows up the independence argument/dynamic. Your entire logic is build on idea that there will not be big pressures from abroad, that where will not be large natural disasters or pandemics, that natural resources are unlimited, etc. Since that is the logic of colonizing the North America. However most of the world isn't North America and it is already full of of people. That is why I am constantly saying that in my book your side is out of date.

The majority of people looking to make changes in the US are pushing for a mixed economy in the US. Not capitalist acceleration and not communism. The people that insist on talking about the answer being more independence should see this as well but they don't.

Anarcho-socialism (libertarian socialism) is about abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations, emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace and decentralized structures of political organization.

I have never, ever heard anyone who proclaims to follow libertarian philosophy, in any way, support any of the above. The above are exactly what libertarianism is and the "more independence" they keep calling for. They don't because they are clinging to a economic system that works for some and a definition of freedom. For some. It's never been for all. They're very careful never to frame it in this way.

Private business owners that wanted 300% profit margin and which overlooked that by doing this to this scale they will blow up the country from the inside.

Libertarians would never support the above. Conservatives are not libertarians and have decided to get in bed with the above, no matter how far they will ever be from this class. But they admire the above. They admire the human cost required to create a 300% profit margin. That makes their views incompatible with liberty, freedom or any of the other values they claim to support.

Fortunately more people in the US are realizing there are other options to run an economy than capitalism alone. Post COVID, I think calls for examining other economic (since there is no - how you gonna pay for it?? any longer) methods will get louder.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The majority of people looking to make changes in the US are pushing for a mixed economy in the US. Not capitalist acceleration and not communism. The people that insist on talking about the answer being more independence should see this as well but they don't.

Anarcho-socialism (libertarian socialism) is about abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations, emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace and decentralized structures of political organization.

I have never, ever heard anyone who proclaims to follow libertarian philosophy, in any way, support any of the above. The above are exactly what libertarianism is and the "more independence" they keep calling for. They don't because they are clinging to a economic system that works for some and a definition of freedom. For some. It's never been for all. They're very careful never to frame it in this way.


Libertarians would never support the above. Conservatives are not libertarians and have decided to get in bed with the above, no matter how far they will ever be from this class. But they admire the above. They admire the human cost required to create a 300% profit margin. That makes their views incompatible with liberty, freedom or any of the other values they claim to support.

Fortunately more people in the US are realizing there are other options to run an economy than capitalism alone. Post COVID, I think calls for examining other economic (since there is no - how you gonna pay for it?? any longer) methods will get louder.

Well, I prefer to call your right Capitalists or libertarians, since for me Conservatism is something completely different. Because historical circles are different and here focus was always more on war and survival of the wars and dictatorships, not profit. I am just watching my own far right: protests over poor waste management, access to drinking water should be guaranteed by constitution as election promise, anti corruption ... etc. As we talked before here dominant combination is socially conservative, and for big government and regulations in economy.



However I know very well what is Anarcho-socialism (libertarian socialism) but even to that I don't give too much of a chance in practical matters (as things stand). I am simply very skeptical about everything that is very to libertarian side. Since all those ideologies want to reduce structure and cohesion, what makes them vulnerable to influences from the outside. How will you with this system fight the subventionized energy that Russia is selling us ? (through what they are buying influence). How will you keep China from completely colonizing Africa, South America or even Australia. Who will make sure that your internet isn't full of foreign propaganda ? Will you just trust the owner that he did everything he can ? How will you make sure he is not taking money from abroad ? What will you do if people decide that preserving environment isn't worth it ? Vaccines ? Etc. As I said million times before red army was driving tanks through my country when I was a kid and therefore all this talk about libertarian stuff are for me pure utopia. Since this approach is not covering all problems in realistic fashion. China's construction workers are already in my city/country, as well as Russian energy, Russian magazines, Russian banks, endless made in China, China's tech ... etc. The front-line has collapsed. Same problem is with the idiots in Bruxelles that can't arrange anything, since everyone thinks just about their own short term interest or doesn't think at all. Even if the whole system is going towards it's end, especially since the union is turning into colony of eastern powers.




As I posted in other thread. (this is the power of the raw state, to which no one here seems to have an answer)

 

[ceecee]

Well, I prefer to call your right Capitalists or libertarians, since for me Conservatism is something completely different. Because historical circles are different and here focus was always more on war and survival of the wars and dictatorships, not profit. I am just watching my own far right: protests over poor waste management, access to drinking water should be guaranteed by constitution as election promise, anti corruption ... etc. As we talked before here dominant combination is socially conservative, and for big government and regulations in economy.



However I know very well what is Anarcho-socialism (libertarian socialism) but even to that I don't give too much of a chance in practical matters (as things stand). I am simply very skeptical about everything that is very to libertarian side. Since all those ideologies want to reduce structure and cohesion, what makes them vulnerable to influences from the outside. How will you with this system fight the subventionized energy that Russia is selling us ? (through what they are buying influence). How will you keep China from completely colonizing Africa, South America or even Australia. Who will make sure that your internet isn't full of foreign propaganda ? Will you just trust the owner that he did everything he can ? How will you make sure he is not taking money from abroad ? What will you do if people decide that preserving environment isn't worth it ? Vaccines ? Etc. As I said million times before red army was driving tanks through my country when I was a kid and therefore all this talk about libertarian stuff are for me pure utopia. Since this approach is not covering all problems in realistic fashion. China's construction workers are already in my city/country, as well as Russian energy, Russian magazines, Russian banks, endless made in China, China's tech ... etc. The front-line has collapsed. Same problem is with the idiots in Bruxelles that can't arrange anything, since everyone thinks just about their own short term interest or doesn't think at all. Even if the whole system is going towards it's end, especially since the union is turning into colony of eastern powers.




As I posted in other thread. (this is the power of the raw state, to which no one here seems to have an answer)

The reason I'm using the term "liberitarian" is because there are conservatives (who identify as a conservative before anything) who think capitalism is simply a feature of libritarianism and more of it is a great idea. But that isn't what libritarianism means. It's not a utopia and it's not a single answer. A mixed economy is what most of the rest of the world has and they seem to be in much better shape in many ways than the US. I certainly want nothing to do with the current right wing version of "libritarianism" that is pervasive in the US. Libertarian socialism is something that doesn't even enter the conservative Americans' sphere of understanding. Participatory democracy isn't possible to them on any level.

The US isn't going to stop China from colonizing Africa or Australian. The US isn't going to stop Russia, backed by China in taking over every trade agreement on the planet and infiltrating as far west as possible. The US isn't going to do anything about environmental disruption. The US isn't going to stop the internet from polluting the minds of billions and turning around and saying that we value freedom, liberty for all and all the other bullshit this country has NEVER lived up to.

All I'm saying is what is going on currently (capitalism at any cost) is not really working for anyone except for a few hundred people in the US, maybe a few thousand world wide. It's never lifted people out of poverty in any numbers or caused economic growth to benefit the environment lol. It's just a lie they have to keep telling themselves.

 

[rav3n]

This Sigourney Weaver quote from Avatar, summarizes what's happening in the U.S.

They're just pissing on us without even giving us the courtesy of calling it rain.

 

[anticlimatic]

Yes, that would be a conservative/libertarian argument but in my book this doesn't really stand as practical idea. As a theory this is good but in practice there are problems. For example why are people getting less independent ? Since this market "game" created clear winners and losers and through that it created the accumulation of wealth I was talking. Therefore for me all that you see around you is basically just inevitable outcome of what you are arguing for. Some people became super wealthy through the market and deregulation and they took over the government, media, culture ... etc. On the other hand who mass exported jobs to China ? Private business owners that wanted 300% profit margin and which overlooked that by doing this to this scale they will blow up the country from the inside. While others became boot lickers in order to earn money for most basic living, since the Chinese are working for 100$ a month and therefore working class lost pretty much all of their cards. This is exactly why Trump got elected but after this many years in the office it seems that this wouldn't turn around for the people. Especially since China used the profit to globally expand and now perhaps all democracies together will not be able to contain it. What basically leads to implosion of everything you are arguing for. Actually the number one reason why I am open minded about the idea that this pandemic is perhaps "bio-terrorism" is that this kind of a pandemic completely blows up the independence argument/dynamic. Your entire logic is build on idea that there will not be big pressures from abroad, that where will not be large natural disasters or pandemics, that natural resources are unlimited, etc. Since that is the logic of colonizing the North America. However most of the world isn't North America and it is already full of of people. That is why I am constantly saying that in my book your side is out of date.

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.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The reason I'm using the term "liberitarian" is because there are conservatives (who identify as a conservative before anything) who think capitalism is simply a feature of libritarianism and more of it is a great idea. But that isn't what libritarianism means. It's not a utopia and it's not a single answer. A mixed economy is what most of the rest of the world has and they seem to be in much better shape in many ways than the US. I certainly want nothing to do with the current right wing version of "libritarianism" that is pervasive in the US. Libertarian socialism is something that doesn't even enter the conservative Americans' sphere of understanding. Participatory democracy isn't possible to them on any level.

The US isn't going to stop China from colonizing Africa or Australian. The US isn't going to stop Russia, backed by China in taking over every trade agreement on the planet and infiltrating as far west as possible. The US isn't going to do anything about environmental disruption. The US isn't going to stop the internet from polluting the minds of billions and turning around and saying that we value freedom, liberty for all and all the other bullshit this country has NEVER lived up to.

All I'm saying is what is going on currently (capitalism at any cost) is not really working for anyone except for a few hundred people in the US, maybe a few thousand world wide. It's never lifted people out of poverty in any numbers or caused economic growth to benefit the environment lol. It's just a lie they have to keep telling themselves.

Yeah, I see that on my own skin. The problem is that Capitalism as it is benefits mostly those with the most "drones" and that evidently isn't the west. Whose inability to create quality answer to all of this is almost hard to believe. As one of my political commentators said some time ago "We here must be aware of the fact that the west that won the cold war no longer exists". However if this set of values doesn't have an answer to the challenges it will end, probably with some kind of a global phase out. The only problem is that in all this democracy is very likely to be "collateral damage", since the East evidently doesn't care much about that. 3 countries that border mine stopped being registered as democracies this year due to their influence. While local economy is slowly turning from mixed economy to consumerist Communism (which exists in China). Since many investors and suppliers aren't private companies in many cases. Plus party of a Marxist professor entered our new administration. Stockmarket is out of mainstream media and people don't really case, actually I am not sure that I have a single US style Capitalist in the parliament ... etc.



While concrete American economic influence has become minimal: internet, entertainment, fast food and that is mostly it. iPhone disappeared from the advertising, I would say the same for the cars, Nike closed all the stores in the country years ago if I am not mistaken, some big investments didn't materialize, visa free travel to US is on hold for decades as well as avoiding double taxation, etc. Certain political and military influence stayed but in economy US us basically invisible besides cheap entertainment stuff. While Russia and China are on a shopping spree: ports, airports, main energy suppliers, super market chains, food industry, they want to build new railways, already are building some local infrastructure, plenty of consumerist stuff in the malls, direct investments, boosting what is left of our heavy industry, new and direct airlines to feed out tourism and general ties ... they are basically pushing EU out of EU country. If the numbers can even remotely be considered correct China is basically Corona free for quite some time and they are supplying most of the world during this crisis. Goods, medical equipment and probably loans as well. Therefore for them this is probably working pretty well in the big picture. Since all mentioned above is even further tilting things in their favor.

 

[Mind Maverick]

In all seriousness, when will you know? How will you know?

When the country isn't run by narcissists like Trump, we will be much closer to knowing.