Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Arraya
Participant[quote=aldante]
Adults look at results objectively. RP was correct[/quote]A lot of people were correct in calling an economic dislocation. However, correct narratives are far and few between. RP will never be able to do that and hence misdiagnose everything to suit his ideology. He constantly and dramatically understates the role of the private industry. Why?
[quote=aldante]
(in 2002)on the uncontrolled wars, the housing bust, gold’s value, lack of confidence in the government, and the dollar losing value, he was correct about the US losing its manufacturing base and the erosion of our civil liberties.[/quote]Losing mfg base? That was a policy for decades. Not really a hard call on that one. Actually all those things are not hard to understand including losing civil liberties, this shows the elite know major economic problems are coming – they are seriously paranoid. RP gets no prize for stating the obvious. Though, it is in short supply in the establishment because being honest is not politically feasible. Politicians can’t get up and say our policies, set forth by our masters, are going to lowers your standard of living dramatically. That is not the way our system works. We’ve been systemically lied to for decades.
[quote=aldante]Furthermore, I would like to address your point about unmitigated Capitalism. Read Bastiat (the Law). Our government exists to ensure our liberties. From outside enemies as well as internal enemies.[/quote]
Yeah, I understand the foundational thesis about the modern government and economics.
You want to start with Thomas Hobbes re-writing of natural law, Locke’s “Treatise of governments”
Then go to Bernard Mandeville who laid the political foundation for Libertarianism when he suggested that a society based on “rational interests” (like a bee hive) would suppress irrational passions. Mandeville’s ideal society was one where the unwitting cooperation of individuals, each working for his or her own interest, would result in the greatest benefit to society at large.
The French writer Baron de Montesquieu , further developed Libertarian politics with a division of political powers in government. The division of power would, in effect, neutralize government and prevent citizens from gaining power over each other; conversely, citizens could easily make power powerless by changing parties. This is what Montesquieu called “liberty.” Today, we call Montesquieu’s philosophy “Social Darwinism” — a term which is most closely associated with the writings of Herbert Spencer. Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” — a term that describes Montesquieu’s state of “liberty” perfectly.
The French physician François Quesnay was the leader of a sect of Enlightenment thinkers known as the Physiocrats (or économistes) who founded Libertarian economics. The term “Physiocracy” means rule of nature and was coined in 1767 by Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours to describe the doctrine of the first modern school of economics. Quesnay transformed economics into its modern role as the science of money. In so doing he disengaged economic process from its role as servant of the sociopolitical order, and established its claim to be the direct manifestation of the natural order. In other words, he argued that the economic process itself embodied natural law and should thus dictate the sociopolitical order.
Quesnay had arrived at his theories of a free market and economic individualism by studying the emergence of a national market in England. But he always understood that in eighteenth century France the unfettered pursuit of individual interest might not result in the natural order he sought to establish. Quesnay knew that men could fail to behave “economically.”
Quesnay believed that his introduction of arithmetic precision into economics provided a scientific rule that should dictate appropriate political arrangements — and even the obedience of sovereigns. He was never willing, however, to trust the spontaneous development of the proper sociopolitical order. Nature required the assistance of an absolute authority capable of forcing natural order upon recalcitrant humans.
Montesquieu’s philosophy of Social Darwinism (survival of the economically fittest), Libertarian politics, and Libertarian economics were imported to America by Pierre Samuel DuPont, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison thereby establishing America as the first Libertarian state.
But, modern science has moved on. These are all invalid theories and not inline with human biological and behavioral or planetary reality. They are built on false assumptions and have inherent blindness that need to be rectified. No politician can do that. Though, we do have a lot invested in this reality and it will take some time for it to cause enough pain to push for a transition. All our institutions are invalid, flawed and outdated.
RP is kind of an artifact. His beliefs are quaint and he does seem to be sincere, but time has moved on. Now, the dominant minority knows this and uses it to their advantage. People should recognize the corruption of the system but not fall victim to romanticizing the past like RP does – one that was not that good under close analysis. I mean, come on, he wants to go back to the Robber Barren days. Seriously. This is his version of an ideal society? The general population fought very hard to get away from that exploitation.
.[quote=aldante] They are participating in croney capitalism. Oligarchy. The wealthy hiring the government class to build the rules in their favor.[/quote]
The elite have no use for a “free market”. This is the inevitable evolution of capitalism and has always been this way to some extent, it’s just much more obvious now. It could not end any other way. Whether things ever worked or just gave the illusion of working is another story. Economists are sophists and make false correlations to fit their world view. I don’t hold it against them, they mostly believe there own BS. Which is really just politics with math. But a valid science, it is not.
[quote=aldante]
I think if you want to stop believing in fairy tales you should start by figuring out who has had the correct answers. Paul Krugman? Austin Goolsby? Chrisina Romer? Uncle Ben? Big Al? Any of the other Candidates? or Ron Paul?[/quote]No, these people are defenders of the flawed status-quo. I don’t look to establishment types for guidance. They will do what ever it takes to perpetuate their validity.
I will say, most probably are doing the best they can within the contexts of what is acceptable, while others use there influence to game this system and even a smaller portion that know things are going to get worse for the majority and are positioning themselves for personal gain from the publics lack of understanding.
Participant[quote=aldante]
Adults look at results objectively. RP was correct[/quote]A lot of people were correct in calling an economic dislocation. However, correct narratives are far and few between. RP will never be able to do that and hence misdiagnose everything to suit his ideology. He constantly and dramatically understates the role of the private industry. Why?
[quote=aldante]
(in 2002)on the uncontrolled wars, the housing bust, gold’s value, lack of confidence in the government, and the dollar losing value, he was correct about the US losing its manufacturing base and the erosion of our civil liberties.[/quote]Losing mfg base? That was a policy for decades. Not really a hard call on that one. Actually all those things are not hard to understand including losing civil liberties, this shows the elite know major economic problems are coming – they are seriously paranoid. RP gets no prize for stating the obvious. Though, it is in short supply in the establishment because being honest is not politically feasible. Politicians can’t get up and say our policies, set forth by our masters, are going to lowers your standard of living dramatically. That is not the way our system works. We’ve been systemically lied to for decades.
[quote=aldante]Furthermore, I would like to address your point about unmitigated Capitalism. Read Bastiat (the Law). Our government exists to ensure our liberties. From outside enemies as well as internal enemies.[/quote]
Yeah, I understand the foundational thesis about the modern government and economics.
You want to start with Thomas Hobbes re-writing of natural law, Locke’s “Treatise of governments”
Then go to Bernard Mandeville who laid the political foundation for Libertarianism when he suggested that a society based on “rational interests” (like a bee hive) would suppress irrational passions. Mandeville’s ideal society was one where the unwitting cooperation of individuals, each working for his or her own interest, would result in the greatest benefit to society at large.
The French writer Baron de Montesquieu , further developed Libertarian politics with a division of political powers in government. The division of power would, in effect, neutralize government and prevent citizens from gaining power over each other; conversely, citizens could easily make power powerless by changing parties. This is what Montesquieu called “liberty.” Today, we call Montesquieu’s philosophy “Social Darwinism” — a term which is most closely associated with the writings of Herbert Spencer. Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” — a term that describes Montesquieu’s state of “liberty” perfectly.
The French physician François Quesnay was the leader of a sect of Enlightenment thinkers known as the Physiocrats (or économistes) who founded Libertarian economics. The term “Physiocracy” means rule of nature and was coined in 1767 by Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours to describe the doctrine of the first modern school of economics. Quesnay transformed economics into its modern role as the science of money. In so doing he disengaged economic process from its role as servant of the sociopolitical order, and established its claim to be the direct manifestation of the natural order. In other words, he argued that the economic process itself embodied natural law and should thus dictate the sociopolitical order.
Quesnay had arrived at his theories of a free market and economic individualism by studying the emergence of a national market in England. But he always understood that in eighteenth century France the unfettered pursuit of individual interest might not result in the natural order he sought to establish. Quesnay knew that men could fail to behave “economically.”
Quesnay believed that his introduction of arithmetic precision into economics provided a scientific rule that should dictate appropriate political arrangements — and even the obedience of sovereigns. He was never willing, however, to trust the spontaneous development of the proper sociopolitical order. Nature required the assistance of an absolute authority capable of forcing natural order upon recalcitrant humans.
Montesquieu’s philosophy of Social Darwinism (survival of the economically fittest), Libertarian politics, and Libertarian economics were imported to America by Pierre Samuel DuPont, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison thereby establishing America as the first Libertarian state.
But, modern science has moved on. These are all invalid theories and not inline with human biological and behavioral or planetary reality. They are built on false assumptions and have inherent blindness that need to be rectified. No politician can do that. Though, we do have a lot invested in this reality and it will take some time for it to cause enough pain to push for a transition. All our institutions are invalid, flawed and outdated.
RP is kind of an artifact. His beliefs are quaint and he does seem to be sincere, but time has moved on. Now, the dominant minority knows this and uses it to their advantage. People should recognize the corruption of the system but not fall victim to romanticizing the past like RP does – one that was not that good under close analysis. I mean, come on, he wants to go back to the Robber Barren days. Seriously. This is his version of an ideal society? The general population fought very hard to get away from that exploitation.
.[quote=aldante] They are participating in croney capitalism. Oligarchy. The wealthy hiring the government class to build the rules in their favor.[/quote]
The elite have no use for a “free market”. This is the inevitable evolution of capitalism and has always been this way to some extent, it’s just much more obvious now. It could not end any other way. Whether things ever worked or just gave the illusion of working is another story. Economists are sophists and make false correlations to fit their world view. I don’t hold it against them, they mostly believe there own BS. Which is really just politics with math. But a valid science, it is not.
[quote=aldante]
I think if you want to stop believing in fairy tales you should start by figuring out who has had the correct answers. Paul Krugman? Austin Goolsby? Chrisina Romer? Uncle Ben? Big Al? Any of the other Candidates? or Ron Paul?[/quote]No, these people are defenders of the flawed status-quo. I don’t look to establishment types for guidance. They will do what ever it takes to perpetuate their validity.
I will say, most probably are doing the best they can within the contexts of what is acceptable, while others use there influence to game this system and even a smaller portion that know things are going to get worse for the majority and are positioning themselves for personal gain from the publics lack of understanding.
Participant[quote=aldante]
Adults look at results objectively. RP was correct[/quote]A lot of people were correct in calling an economic dislocation. However, correct narratives are far and few between. RP will never be able to do that and hence misdiagnose everything to suit his ideology. He constantly and dramatically understates the role of the private industry. Why?
[quote=aldante]
(in 2002)on the uncontrolled wars, the housing bust, gold’s value, lack of confidence in the government, and the dollar losing value, he was correct about the US losing its manufacturing base and the erosion of our civil liberties.[/quote]Losing mfg base? That was a policy for decades. Not really a hard call on that one. Actually all those things are not hard to understand including losing civil liberties, this shows the elite know major economic problems are coming – they are seriously paranoid. RP gets no prize for stating the obvious. Though, it is in short supply in the establishment because being honest is not politically feasible. Politicians can’t get up and say our policies, set forth by our masters, are going to lowers your standard of living dramatically. That is not the way our system works. We’ve been systemically lied to for decades.
[quote=aldante]Furthermore, I would like to address your point about unmitigated Capitalism. Read Bastiat (the Law). Our government exists to ensure our liberties. From outside enemies as well as internal enemies.[/quote]
Yeah, I understand the foundational thesis about the modern government and economics.
You want to start with Thomas Hobbes re-writing of natural law, Locke’s “Treatise of governments”
Then go to Bernard Mandeville who laid the political foundation for Libertarianism when he suggested that a society based on “rational interests” (like a bee hive) would suppress irrational passions. Mandeville’s ideal society was one where the unwitting cooperation of individuals, each working for his or her own interest, would result in the greatest benefit to society at large.
The French writer Baron de Montesquieu , further developed Libertarian politics with a division of political powers in government. The division of power would, in effect, neutralize government and prevent citizens from gaining power over each other; conversely, citizens could easily make power powerless by changing parties. This is what Montesquieu called “liberty.” Today, we call Montesquieu’s philosophy “Social Darwinism” — a term which is most closely associated with the writings of Herbert Spencer. Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” — a term that describes Montesquieu’s state of “liberty” perfectly.
The French physician François Quesnay was the leader of a sect of Enlightenment thinkers known as the Physiocrats (or économistes) who founded Libertarian economics. The term “Physiocracy” means rule of nature and was coined in 1767 by Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours to describe the doctrine of the first modern school of economics. Quesnay transformed economics into its modern role as the science of money. In so doing he disengaged economic process from its role as servant of the sociopolitical order, and established its claim to be the direct manifestation of the natural order. In other words, he argued that the economic process itself embodied natural law and should thus dictate the sociopolitical order.
Quesnay had arrived at his theories of a free market and economic individualism by studying the emergence of a national market in England. But he always understood that in eighteenth century France the unfettered pursuit of individual interest might not result in the natural order he sought to establish. Quesnay knew that men could fail to behave “economically.”
Quesnay believed that his introduction of arithmetic precision into economics provided a scientific rule that should dictate appropriate political arrangements — and even the obedience of sovereigns. He was never willing, however, to trust the spontaneous development of the proper sociopolitical order. Nature required the assistance of an absolute authority capable of forcing natural order upon recalcitrant humans.
Montesquieu’s philosophy of Social Darwinism (survival of the economically fittest), Libertarian politics, and Libertarian economics were imported to America by Pierre Samuel DuPont, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison thereby establishing America as the first Libertarian state.
But, modern science has moved on. These are all invalid theories and not inline with human biological and behavioral or planetary reality. They are built on false assumptions and have inherent blindness that need to be rectified. No politician can do that. Though, we do have a lot invested in this reality and it will take some time for it to cause enough pain to push for a transition. All our institutions are invalid, flawed and outdated.
RP is kind of an artifact. His beliefs are quaint and he does seem to be sincere, but time has moved on. Now, the dominant minority knows this and uses it to their advantage. People should recognize the corruption of the system but not fall victim to romanticizing the past like RP does – one that was not that good under close analysis. I mean, come on, he wants to go back to the Robber Barren days. Seriously. This is his version of an ideal society? The general population fought very hard to get away from that exploitation.
.[quote=aldante] They are participating in croney capitalism. Oligarchy. The wealthy hiring the government class to build the rules in their favor.[/quote]
The elite have no use for a “free market”. This is the inevitable evolution of capitalism and has always been this way to some extent, it’s just much more obvious now. It could not end any other way. Whether things ever worked or just gave the illusion of working is another story. Economists are sophists and make false correlations to fit their world view. I don’t hold it against them, they mostly believe there own BS. Which is really just politics with math. But a valid science, it is not.
[quote=aldante]
I think if you want to stop believing in fairy tales you should start by figuring out who has had the correct answers. Paul Krugman? Austin Goolsby? Chrisina Romer? Uncle Ben? Big Al? Any of the other Candidates? or Ron Paul?[/quote]No, these people are defenders of the flawed status-quo. I don’t look to establishment types for guidance. They will do what ever it takes to perpetuate their validity.
I will say, most probably are doing the best they can within the contexts of what is acceptable, while others use there influence to game this system and even a smaller portion that know things are going to get worse for the majority and are positioning themselves for personal gain from the publics lack of understanding.
August 26, 2011 at 9:42 PM in reply to: Low Mortgage Interest Rates For Everyone!!!: U.S. May Back Refinance Plan for Mortgages #725074ParticipantFrom mish. This is exactly what I was thinking:
Depending on precisely how the proposal is implemented, the effect may be to take poor performing loans off the balance sheets of banks and hedge funds and dump the risks squarely on the backs of taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie.
August 26, 2011 at 9:42 PM in reply to: Low Mortgage Interest Rates For Everyone!!!: U.S. May Back Refinance Plan for Mortgages #725163ParticipantFrom mish. This is exactly what I was thinking:
Depending on precisely how the proposal is implemented, the effect may be to take poor performing loans off the balance sheets of banks and hedge funds and dump the risks squarely on the backs of taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie.
August 26, 2011 at 9:42 PM in reply to: Low Mortgage Interest Rates For Everyone!!!: U.S. May Back Refinance Plan for Mortgages #725762ParticipantFrom mish. This is exactly what I was thinking:
Depending on precisely how the proposal is implemented, the effect may be to take poor performing loans off the balance sheets of banks and hedge funds and dump the risks squarely on the backs of taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie.
August 26, 2011 at 9:42 PM in reply to: Low Mortgage Interest Rates For Everyone!!!: U.S. May Back Refinance Plan for Mortgages #725915ParticipantFrom mish. This is exactly what I was thinking:
Depending on precisely how the proposal is implemented, the effect may be to take poor performing loans off the balance sheets of banks and hedge funds and dump the risks squarely on the backs of taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie.
August 26, 2011 at 9:42 PM in reply to: Low Mortgage Interest Rates For Everyone!!!: U.S. May Back Refinance Plan for Mortgages #726283ParticipantFrom mish. This is exactly what I was thinking:
Depending on precisely how the proposal is implemented, the effect may be to take poor performing loans off the balance sheets of banks and hedge funds and dump the risks squarely on the backs of taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie.
August 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725054ParticipantBrian, you are mistaking my analysis of trajectories and global macro forces with desires – though I do admit to wanting it to go a certain way – which would be to a sane, healthy and celebratory society.
Our economic system is a reflection of our collective consciousness. Economics isn’t objective, it is simply one subjective method of understanding the meta narrative of human life, thought & culture.
We have deep problems foundational problems that need to get rectified or we will continue destructive, unhealthy behavior.
[quote=briansd1]What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?[/quote]
Yes, we are collapsing into a transition period that is probably going to be generational. Welcome to it. It’s happening now you just don’t see it because you chose not to look. However, we should see monumental changes in the next decade or two. Though, I do think it will become more apparent to you in the near future. Prepare your scapegoats.
[quote=briansd1]I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don’t end it.[/quote]
Unfortunately for you and US, global marco forces won’t conform to your desires. The inertia of what is coming is unstoppable, though it is delay-able and easy to ignore(until it’s not) – that is just your vanity speaking or OUR vanity.
August 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725143ParticipantBrian, you are mistaking my analysis of trajectories and global macro forces with desires – though I do admit to wanting it to go a certain way – which would be to a sane, healthy and celebratory society.
Our economic system is a reflection of our collective consciousness. Economics isn’t objective, it is simply one subjective method of understanding the meta narrative of human life, thought & culture.
We have deep problems foundational problems that need to get rectified or we will continue destructive, unhealthy behavior.
[quote=briansd1]What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?[/quote]
Yes, we are collapsing into a transition period that is probably going to be generational. Welcome to it. It’s happening now you just don’t see it because you chose not to look. However, we should see monumental changes in the next decade or two. Though, I do think it will become more apparent to you in the near future. Prepare your scapegoats.
[quote=briansd1]I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don’t end it.[/quote]
Unfortunately for you and US, global marco forces won’t conform to your desires. The inertia of what is coming is unstoppable, though it is delay-able and easy to ignore(until it’s not) – that is just your vanity speaking or OUR vanity.
August 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725742ParticipantBrian, you are mistaking my analysis of trajectories and global macro forces with desires – though I do admit to wanting it to go a certain way – which would be to a sane, healthy and celebratory society.
Our economic system is a reflection of our collective consciousness. Economics isn’t objective, it is simply one subjective method of understanding the meta narrative of human life, thought & culture.
We have deep problems foundational problems that need to get rectified or we will continue destructive, unhealthy behavior.
[quote=briansd1]What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?[/quote]
Yes, we are collapsing into a transition period that is probably going to be generational. Welcome to it. It’s happening now you just don’t see it because you chose not to look. However, we should see monumental changes in the next decade or two. Though, I do think it will become more apparent to you in the near future. Prepare your scapegoats.
[quote=briansd1]I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don’t end it.[/quote]
Unfortunately for you and US, global marco forces won’t conform to your desires. The inertia of what is coming is unstoppable, though it is delay-able and easy to ignore(until it’s not) – that is just your vanity speaking or OUR vanity.
August 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725895ParticipantBrian, you are mistaking my analysis of trajectories and global macro forces with desires – though I do admit to wanting it to go a certain way – which would be to a sane, healthy and celebratory society.
Our economic system is a reflection of our collective consciousness. Economics isn’t objective, it is simply one subjective method of understanding the meta narrative of human life, thought & culture.
We have deep problems foundational problems that need to get rectified or we will continue destructive, unhealthy behavior.
[quote=briansd1]What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?[/quote]
Yes, we are collapsing into a transition period that is probably going to be generational. Welcome to it. It’s happening now you just don’t see it because you chose not to look. However, we should see monumental changes in the next decade or two. Though, I do think it will become more apparent to you in the near future. Prepare your scapegoats.
[quote=briansd1]I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don’t end it.[/quote]
Unfortunately for you and US, global marco forces won’t conform to your desires. The inertia of what is coming is unstoppable, though it is delay-able and easy to ignore(until it’s not) – that is just your vanity speaking or OUR vanity.
August 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #726263ParticipantBrian, you are mistaking my analysis of trajectories and global macro forces with desires – though I do admit to wanting it to go a certain way – which would be to a sane, healthy and celebratory society.
Our economic system is a reflection of our collective consciousness. Economics isn’t objective, it is simply one subjective method of understanding the meta narrative of human life, thought & culture.
We have deep problems foundational problems that need to get rectified or we will continue destructive, unhealthy behavior.
[quote=briansd1]What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?[/quote]
Yes, we are collapsing into a transition period that is probably going to be generational. Welcome to it. It’s happening now you just don’t see it because you chose not to look. However, we should see monumental changes in the next decade or two. Though, I do think it will become more apparent to you in the near future. Prepare your scapegoats.
[quote=briansd1]I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don’t end it.[/quote]
Unfortunately for you and US, global marco forces won’t conform to your desires. The inertia of what is coming is unstoppable, though it is delay-able and easy to ignore(until it’s not) – that is just your vanity speaking or OUR vanity.
August 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725033Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.[/quote]
After that is done – then the revolution comes:)
The way I see it, Marxism is an explanation and a decent one. It’s not structural.
You want dialectic – well the right has a dialectic stating that there is two opposing forces 1: the debtors 2: the savers and this will be rectified via the destruction of the welfare state.
Marx would spin this on it’s head and say that is a false dialectic set up by the monied elite. In reality the destruction of the welfare state will show the true nature of the class system and be rectified another way.
But, I agree, the welfare state as we know it is going to get destroyed
Though, agree with the marxian dialectic
-
AuthorPosts
