Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
575 replies to this topic

#461
Ben No.3

Ben No.3

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Frankfurt a. M., Germany

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.

Huh?
it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of control

#462
KaineParker

KaineParker

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2717 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.


Huh?
it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of control

The markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official.

#463
Ben No.3

Ben No.3

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Frankfurt a. M., Germany

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.

Huh?
it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of control
The markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official.
even for "them", the underlying mechanisms are beyond "their" control

#464
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

It's not that the markets are out of control. And there are things the government can to to modify activity. Taxation for example. Increase tax on an activity, capital gains for example, and you get less of that activity, investing for example. Decrease taxes and you get more of that activity. If you want to encourage borrowing, decrease the interest rate. Do the opposite to discourage. But at the end of the day the economy is millions of investors, producers, consumers, buyers, sellers, and speculators doing what is in their own interests and beholden to nothing else. It can't be controlled. Nor should it be.

 

The problem rises when trying to take control without taking over. Then it's neither free nor regulated. Neither wolf nor dog. That isn't good. I've said a hundred times pure laissez-faire capitalism is not the best option. There must be some ground rules but they must be few, universally and evenhanded enforced. That economy will grow, then contract, grow then contract. It will always correct it's excesses and return to the mean. It's a beautiful system because is follows human behavior. It won't make everyone rich. There will be winners and losers. Just like in life. But over all there will be a much higher level of prosperity and opportunity for anyone to improve their lot. 

 

I know Ben will argue the opposite but in his system the economy is chained hand and foot. It may never crash but it will never grow. There is no incentive for hard work, innovation, risk taking investments, etc. And so none of those things will happen. 



#465
Elerond

Elerond

    One of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2603 posts
  • Location:Finland
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

 

 

 

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.

Huh?
it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of control
The markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official.
even for "them", the underlying mechanisms are beyond "their" control

 

 

Economy is sum of complex systems, some which are more controlled and some with little oversight. 

 

But elected official have capacity to do decisions that have heavy impact on economy and direction it will take, which is why it is good that they usually are satisfied just to move some pieces around and claim that they have done massive amount of work.



#466
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4328 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

 

"Yes they are both corrupt in their own way, but Hillary can speak in complete sentences and has considerable previous experience,"

 

The experience of mass murder, pushing for wars,  inability/ignorance/criminality of how to use a computer,  racism against blacks, sexism against women, but yeah, 'experience'.  You are right. She has ahd 30 years of politic. 30 years to show everyone how awful and evil and scummy she is.

 

Trump may be a gigantic douchebag but he is a docuhebag who had little experience in politics compared to her so  it is now his term to be a douchy politician.

Trump is much more of an embarrassment and has created real consternation and discord in the USA

 

He is not a dictator and has done several positive things in the USA but we still have to wait for his 4 years to end 

 

I doubt Hilary would have created such   a dysfunctional, dichotomy in the USA around left and right wing?

 

 

There would be plenty of dysfunction to go around. Just a different sort. But at least we are spared the shrieking chorus of "misogyny, misogyny!" very time the congress controlled by one party opposed something a President of the other party wanted to do. Like how they cried "Racism, racism!" the last 8 years?

 

 Its strange but there was a time before the election where I would disagreed with some of this post but now I basically agree, I cant handle another SJ crusade like we saw in the election where it missed certain developments and alliances. The outcome was 9 months where I was glued to many news networks watching  in " horror and contempt " as Trump insulted every minority I knew....yet he didnt really and I felt I had been hoodwinked and Trump won   :lol:  :lol:

"He is not a dictator and has done several positive things in the USA"

 

could you name them

https://www.washingt...m=.6a9c1ddc6e33

 

I wont lie I just searched for  this as I needed to find a few examples and I was battling :)


  • redneckdevil likes this

#467
KaineParker

KaineParker

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2717 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.

Huh?
it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of control
The markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official.
even for "them", the underlying mechanisms are beyond "their" control

Change your avatar to a rose or read a book.

#468
redneckdevil

redneckdevil

    Psycho Hillbilly of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 876 posts
  • Location:North carolina
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

"Yes they are both corrupt in their own way, but Hillary can speak in complete sentences and has considerable previous experience,"

The experience of mass murder, pushing for wars, inability/ignorance/criminality of how to use a computer, racism against blacks, sexism against women, but yeah, 'experience'. You are right. She has ahd 30 years of politic. 30 years to show everyone how awful and evil and scummy she is.

Trump may be a gigantic douchebag but he is a docuhebag who had little experience in politics compared to her so it is now his term to be a douchy politician.

Trump is much more of an embarrassment and has created real consternation and discord in the USA

He is not a dictator and has done several positive things in the USA but we still have to wait for his 4 years to end

I doubt Hilary would have created such a dysfunctional, dichotomy in the USA around left and right wing?

U would also agree our media's unhealthy obsession with him has also lended to our embarrassment and discord as well?
I strongly dislike the man and even moreso as our president, BUT would we really be embarrassed/outraged/etc AS MUCH if our media didn't latch onto every action/speech/etc and twist it even further?
Would we have all the street parades we've had without the media poking even further and beyond? The scienctists so far seem to be the only ones who "justly" from his actions in office to protest.

#469
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4328 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

 

"Yes they are both corrupt in their own way, but Hillary can speak in complete sentences and has considerable previous experience,"

The experience of mass murder, pushing for wars, inability/ignorance/criminality of how to use a computer, racism against blacks, sexism against women, but yeah, 'experience'. You are right. She has ahd 30 years of politic. 30 years to show everyone how awful and evil and scummy she is.

Trump may be a gigantic douchebag but he is a docuhebag who had little experience in politics compared to her so it is now his term to be a douchy politician.

Trump is much more of an embarrassment and has created real consternation and discord in the USA

He is not a dictator and has done several positive things in the USA but we still have to wait for his 4 years to end

I doubt Hilary would have created such a dysfunctional, dichotomy in the USA around left and right wing?

U would also agree our media's unhealthy obsession with him has also lended to our embarrassment and discord as well?
I strongly dislike the man and even moreso as our president, BUT would we really be embarrassed/outraged/etc AS MUCH if our media didn't latch onto every action/speech/etc and twist it even further?
Would we have all the street parades we've had without the media poking even further and beyond? The scienctists so far seem to be the only ones who "justly" from his actions in office to protest.

 

You do make some valid points. But to put things in context, I watch loads of news channels and on channels like CNN it would appear that they are always talking about Trump and criticizing him or analyzing his comments

 

Yes its constant but its because he seems to always make controversial comments yet I have to say I only watch selectively times so I dont get bored

 

So if I have to screen a channel like CNN then you must find it exaperastating  :biggrin:


  • redneckdevil likes this

#470
Ben No.3

Ben No.3

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Frankfurt a. M., Germany

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.

Huh?
it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of control
The markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official.
even for "them", the underlying mechanisms are beyond "their" control
Change your avatar to a rose or read a book.
Read some sense into yourself.

#471
213374U

213374U

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5002 posts
  • Location:PIGS
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

It's not that the markets are out of control. And there are things the government can to to modify activity. Taxation for example. Increase tax on an activity, capital gains for example, and you get less of that activity, investing for example. Decrease taxes and you get more of that activity. If you want to encourage borrowing, decrease the interest rate. Do the opposite to discourage. But at the end of the day the economy is millions of investors, producers, consumers, buyers, sellers, and speculators doing what is in their own interests and beholden to nothing else. It can't be controlled. Nor should it be.

The problem rises when trying to take control without taking over. Then it's neither free nor regulated. Neither wolf nor dog. That isn't good. I've said a hundred times pure laissez-faire capitalism is not the best option. There must be some ground rules but they must be few, universally and evenhanded enforced. That economy will grow, then contract, grow then contract. It will always correct it's excesses and return to the mean. It's a beautiful system because is follows human behavior. It won't make everyone rich. There will be winners and losers. Just like in life. But over all there will be a much higher level of prosperity and opportunity for anyone to improve their lot.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Much like with the whole "invisible hand" gimmick, I'm not really sold on this romantic vision that "winners and losers" is a state of affairs that is desirable, if being a loser means lacking basic means to sustain yourself through no fault of your own. This isn't a game, and in this context, the increasing amount of "losers" tend to turn to crime which threatens the stability of society as a whole. A system that will not make everyone rich but will indeed make most poor is, I'm sorry, a very bad system.

 

And I see no reason why a system created by humans to serve humans "should not be controlled". That's very much what laissez-faire is, at its core.


  • Azdeus and aluminiumtrioxid like this

#472
KaineParker

KaineParker

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2717 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.

Huh?
it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of control
The markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official.
even for "them", the underlying mechanisms are beyond "their" control
Change your avatar to a rose or read a book.
Read some sense into yourself.
The "underlying mechanisms" aren't some natural or divine occurance, they are the results of those who hold the levers of power aka the bourgeoisie acting in their own self-interest in the short term. That they don't coordinate their efforts to collectively manipulate their grand machine is evidence of intra-class conflict, not evidence the market is a natural phenomenon like gravity. This should be basic **** for anyone who has lurked a leftist forum for a week, let alone read an ounce of theory.

Here is a new avatar for you that better fits your opinions and knowledge.

Red_Rose_%28Socialism%29.svg.png

#473
Gfted1

Gfted1

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5200 posts
  • Location:Chicago, IL
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Man, you pinko's sure are cranky. :p



#474
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

It's not that the markets are out of control. And there are things the government can to to modify activity. Taxation for example. Increase tax on an activity, capital gains for example, and you get less of that activity, investing for example. Decrease taxes and you get more of that activity. If you want to encourage borrowing, decrease the interest rate. Do the opposite to discourage. But at the end of the day the economy is millions of investors, producers, consumers, buyers, sellers, and speculators doing what is in their own interests and beholden to nothing else. It can't be controlled. Nor should it be.

The problem rises when trying to take control without taking over. Then it's neither free nor regulated. Neither wolf nor dog. That isn't good. I've said a hundred times pure laissez-faire capitalism is not the best option. There must be some ground rules but they must be few, universally and evenhanded enforced. That economy will grow, then contract, grow then contract. It will always correct it's excesses and return to the mean. It's a beautiful system because is follows human behavior. It won't make everyone rich. There will be winners and losers. Just like in life. But over all there will be a much higher level of prosperity and opportunity for anyone to improve their lot.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Much like with the whole "invisible hand" gimmick, I'm not really sold on this romantic vision that "winners and losers" is a state of affairs that is desirable, if being a loser means lacking basic means to sustain yourself through no fault of your own. This isn't a game, and in this context, the increasing amount of "losers" tend to turn to crime which threatens the stability of society as a whole. A system that will not make everyone rich but will indeed make most poor is, I'm sorry, a very bad system.

 

And I see no reason why a system created by humans to serve humans "should not be controlled". That's very much what laissez-faire is, at its core.

 

 

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough. 



#475
KaineParker

KaineParker

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2717 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
The US isn't the entire world and there's a difference between starving and half the country living in poverty when you don't count for government programs.

Man, you pinko's sure are cranky. :p


Comes with the territory.

#476
Ben No.3

Ben No.3

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Frankfurt a. M., Germany

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.

Huh?
it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of control
The markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official.
even for "them", the underlying mechanisms are beyond "their" control
Change your avatar to a rose or read a book.
Read some sense into yourself.
The "underlying mechanisms" aren't some natural or divine occurance, they are the results of those who hold the levers of power aka the bourgeoisie acting in their own self-interest in the short term. That they don't coordinate their efforts to collectively manipulate their grand machine is evidence of intra-class conflict, not evidence the market is a natural phenomenon like gravity. This should be basic **** for anyone who has lurked a leftist forum for a week, let alone read an ounce of theory.

Here is a new avatar for you that better fits your opinions and knowledge.

[imghttp://vignette2.wik...ialism).svg.png[/img]
Don't be so short sighted. It is easy to give in to the idea of a ruling class that is truly ruling, but that idea is a false one.
Humans are, to a large extent, slave to the society they live in. This is not to say we can't have an individual personality, but our day to day actions will be, more or less, determined by the society in and how we handle it. This applies for the bourgeois just as much as it does for the proletarian. Neither one of those is truly in control of their fate. It is ludicrous to assume that a golden cage is less of a cage than a dirt one. The fact that the bourgeois is better off doesn't make him less of a subject to society's influence
How many of the rich genuinely need to work? None. Yet there are vast numbers of them who work long hours, week for week. Take Germany. If you look at the numbers, there is a positive correlation between income and overtime hours per week. While those who earn below 20.000 a year work on average 2 hours overtime per week, those who earn above 120.000 per week, so top earners, work on average 10 hours overtime per week. Do they have to? No. Do they do it anyway? Yes.
http://www.e-fellows...hr-Ueberstunden
and is your bourgeois truly free in his decision when he works his overtime hours? He has to decide exactly in a way that will enable him and his company to survive. He doesn't rule, he reacts. And what he reacts to is the market; is really just the others trying to survive themselves. The market is a societal force because it is society. It is the way we organise the economy, and by that everything else. Basic ****, right?

it is far to simple to say that there is some evil clique in control. Sadly, it is a very powerful myth, because it is so beautifully simple. And wouldn't it be nice if it were so? If we could just start a revolution, chop of a few heads and be forever free?
HA! Good Fun!

Reality is sadly a bit more complicated.

Edited by Ben No.3, 17 July 2017 - 12:26 PM.


#477
213374U

213374U

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5002 posts
  • Location:PIGS
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough.

 
Again with the insinuation that homeless people are just lazy. It's such a great thought process because it goes like "only lazy people are ever homeless → I'm not lazy → I will never be homeless". If only.
 
I take it then that, for instance, the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans are just lazy?
 
A certain book I'm reading says that that, by 1993, just about 5% of all companies in the US had started looking into ways to automate processes and suppress jobs, where 75% of all jobs in the US were essentially repetitive tasks (i.e. easily substituted for a machine). I take it that the millions of people being laid off with no prospects of finding even a job flipping burgers are lazy? The downward slope in prime-age male % participation in the workforce hasn't changed despite the recent employment upturn, which is in part driven by poor quality job creation. Are those not able to find stable, full-time jobs lazy?

 

And no, you don't see roving gangs of starving proles because they turn to crime rather than starve. Are you sure you don't see roving gangs in the most economically depressed areas of the US?


Edited by 213374U, 17 July 2017 - 12:55 PM.


#478
smjjames

smjjames

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 489 posts

 

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough.

 
Again with the insinuation that homeless people are just lazy. It's such a great thought process because it goes like "only lazy people are ever homeless → I'm not lazy → I will never be homeless". If only.
 
I take it then that, for instance, the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans are just lazy?
 
A certain book I'm reading says that that, by 1993, just about 5% of all companies in the US had started looking into ways to automate processes and suppress jobs, where 75% of all jobs in the US were essentially repetitive tasks (i.e. easily substituted for a machine). I take it that the millions of people being laid off with no prospects of finding even a job flipping burgers are lazy? The downward slope in prime-age male % participation in the workforce hasn't changed despite the recent employment upturn, which is in part driven by poor quality job creation. Are those not able to find stable, full-time jobs lazy?

 

And no, you don't see roving gangs of starving proles because they turn to crime rather than starve. Are you sure you don't see roving gangs in the most economically depressed areas of the US?

 

 

 

GD was being pretty clearly sarcastic and/or tongue-in-cheek.


  • Guard Dog likes this

#479
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

At the risk or repeating someting I wrote a few pages back: Being poor is not a choice. Staying poor might not even be a choice. Staying poor by failing to take advantage ot the programs, opportunites, and charities that exist to help people in that situation IS a choice. 

 

But if you want to discuss the need for a Universal Basic Income at some point, one that REPLACES all other social benefits we are way overpaying for poor returns on, I'm open to that.


  • BruceVC likes this

#480
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

 

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough.

 
Again with the insinuation that homeless people are just lazy. It's such a great thought process because it goes like "only lazy people are ever homeless → I'm not lazy → I will never be homeless". If only.
 
I take it then that, for instance, the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans are just lazy?
 
A certain book I'm reading says that that, by 1993, just about 5% of all companies in the US had started looking into ways to automate processes and suppress jobs, where 75% of all jobs in the US were essentially repetitive tasks (i.e. easily substituted for a machine). I take it that the millions of people being laid off with no prospects of finding even a job flipping burgers are lazy? The downward slope in prime-age male % participation in the workforce hasn't changed despite the recent employment upturn, which is in part driven by poor quality job creation. Are those not able to find stable, full-time jobs lazy?

 

And no, you don't see roving gangs of starving proles because they turn to crime rather than starve. Are you sure you don't see roving gangs in the most economically depressed areas of the US?

 

 

 

GD was being pretty clearly sarcastic and/or tongue-in-cheek.

 

 

It does not always come over well on text forums.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users