The Neo-Liberals ...

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Feb 25, 2017.

  1. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I never said the system isn't working.

    It's not working for your precious 'Joe Plebe'. Very big difference.

    The US is EXACTLY working how it's supposed to work, but only for a rather small minority of your population, those that have a hell of a lot of money, the less money you have, the worse the government and this 'democracy' of yours is for the people. And now consider how the income of people is dwindling, at a very rapid speed in the US and there is no sign, that this is coming back, the so called middle class.

    But for many people, the large majority, this system simply isn't beneficial (anymore). And that's a fact. Look at how the economy and society has degraded over the last few decades. A democracy is supposed to work, by representing the people, the majority, by making sure that they have the power and a voice. If people don't feel represented anymore, why should we believe that we're having a democratic process, beacuse there are ballots where you can make a cross?

    Voting between lesser of two evils here, is pretty much one of the worst defnitions I could think off when we're talking about a democracy - and yes, this is something that sadly happens in Europe as well, but at least Germany doesn't have basically what is a two party system.

    I find it sad, that we're defending this kind democratic concept always with this idea, well! We have only shitty choices, but we have at least choices! Like if I asked you if you want to have AIDS or Cancer, or if you give the frogs controll over the swamp and how to best drain it, is a democratic process.

    Go and look at the numbers, voting and trust in this so called 'democracy' is at an ALL TIME LOW(!), this is a VERY(!) dangerous evolution.

    There is an anecdote someone told me, about Tyrannos who was a head of state in Greece - no clue if it's true I wasn't able to find some references for it - Tyrannos took over the democratic state of Greece or Athen or something. And how has he achieved this? Because he moved in to the parliament with a group of people armed with clubs, because the population thought, there was no movement anymore, and the senators just serverd their own causes so they supported his cause beacuse in their mind a 'strong' leader was needed to solve the issue once and for all. I guess that's where the term Tyrant comes from, for the case the anecdote has any historical refence.

    More and more people associate democracy with politicans, and are seperated from the political and democratic process. For people in the rust belt, to use an example, it doesn't matter even one bit who tehy vote for, democrats or reps. And now you want to tell such people something about the fact, that they have at least a 'choice'.

    Good luck.

    Yes, Europe is currently doing better than the US as society. But not beacuse we would be the better people or something. No, this has in my opinion one very simple reason. Beacuse many states invested at some point in the 'Social State', where stability and a certain sense of equality in wealth was more important than liberal freedom at every cost, which also doesn't make you free by the way and is just a fancy word of saying, rich people need more shit and tax cuts - at least these days, the liberal idea which I actually support, doesn't exist anymore within the political elites.

    People that are to poor to even afford the minimum that is necessary for their living, while working their tails off, are a very dangerous demographic to any democratic society.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
  2. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Ninja Lurker

    Oct 27, 2003
    I would say otherwise but what specifically do you mean? Is the problem representative democracy? Not enough euro socialism?

    The middle class is shrinking because there is not enough ability to move up. By that I mean access to higher paying jobs thanks that those stupid degree requirements. Alleviate that situation and we increase mobility. Education also needs to be reformed. The middle class is also under constant attack by the left, trying to pushing for bigger government and higher taxes. The rich have lawyers that can help them wade through the bloated government laws but not so much for the middle and poor. There is a lot of things that can be done to help the middle class and the poor but that does not necessarily mean super socialism.

    The economy swings up and down, like it always has. If you talk about standard of living, that is a whole different complex topic. And what do you mean by society has degraded? You mean because we aren't super big on extreme socialism?

    First of all, this was the only election where shit really got so bad but hey, lets explore more anyways. TBH, life isn't a fucking movie or video game where one guy is clearly bad and the other good. People do not work that way. As much as you want to make Bernie Sanders into the second coming of Jesus, it will never be. Historically, men, being flawed as they are, will lead other men. That means they will make good AND bad decisions. After all what did I say earlier, you can't please everyone. Ask any voter throughout fucking history and they will tell you the same thing, the leaders are corrupt and they suck. Too many taxes, not enough utopia, etc. So yea, it has historically always been, in a strange way, the lesser of two evils. Plenty of people thought Obama was evil and plenty of people thought McCain was the devil. Look at all the civil wars throughout history, each side thought the other leader was the villain.

    Like I said, polls and surveys can be flawed as well.

    And I could say the same thing about Lenin and these leftist/progressives talking all this shit about WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION AND REVOLUTION. What did Mao say again? 'Political power comes from the barrel of a gun'? This leads back to the shitty choices topic above. Both sides see the other as enemies and roadblocks to the path of enlightenment, and, in the past, but thankfully not now, use violence to decide a victor.

    Again, 'Joe Plebe needs to be managed but they can never be sated fully, only to the point of maintaining order. Ask a citizen from any point in the past and they will complain about the same shit we still complain about thousands of years later. But as CT put it the rise of the democratic process gave the plebes un paralleled social maneuverability, something that many monarchies or caste systems did not provide. However, America has never been a direct but a representative democracy. Joe Plebe, even after having much more ability to move up, will always complain about ANY system, including, Democracy. But again, things aren't perfect so, 'Democracy is a sham'.

    Yes you are, but education and culture can only do so much. Euroe, first and foremost, does not need to maintain a standing army to do the things that other world powers do. NATO handles that for you. Create a Euro force and see how much that costs and how it will effect all the 'free shit'. Second, your populations are a fraction of what we have here. Ever since the refugee crisis started hitting your shores, you have a real life taste of what happens when people start treating Europe as a primary immigration point, much like the U.S. A rich nation, like Germany, can afford to take on more people as compared to Greece, which cannot do the same. The refugee crisis is a big deal in Europe and often times, as Brexit shows, when things start getting bad, the Europeans look much more like Americans FAST.

    And how do you know this, because some 'survey', said so? Many of the 'poor', here have TVs, food, gaming consoles, and the like. While I agree there are some who really do need help, like the drug addicts, hard core alcoholics and the ones with mental problems, these folks are not nearly as numerous as the leftist media would have you believe, coming from an American. Food is plenty cheap and the only ones who have serious food issues are those folks who are busy spending all of their money on drugs, alcohol, gambling, have had way too many kids or are mentally challenged and cannot support themselves. We have affordable housing programs, we have charities that build homes for the needy, we have things like welfare, which is enough for your average American.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2017
  3. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    When I say it's not working for the 'average american/person' than I mean on the principles of a democracy where the power lies by the people and where the representatives are supposed to well ... actually represent their voters. And they are doing a piss poor job at that currently - not just in the US, mind you. People are so desperate for changes, that it got some buffon like Turmp in to office. If that doesn't wake you up, than nothing can I guess ...

    I mean seriously, count the numbers of millionairs and very wealthy that run around in offices and tell me how that is representative of a population that doesn't even earn or own a fraction of what they have. This goes much further than just bribery and corruption, it's also a difference in understanding, you could even go as far as to say that people that grew up with wealth, have a different 'culture'. Just look at some of the completley crazy statements that people throw out to the 'poor' and and americans that don't earn much, they are living in their own reality.

    Hell, if you would want to go back at the founding fathers, you could at least argue that they represented a large portion of the nation, which have been land owners. So if they made decisions for them, they also made them for a large majority of the nation.

    If senators, judges, governors and other high officials make decisions today, who do you think will they have in mind? The poor fucks on the street, or the rich and wealthy which they actually belong to? Well at least a very large majority of politicans these days belong to the 'rich' club.

    Ask your self why there's still no Financial transaction tax, despite the fact that it is one of the most popular and agreed regulations. It's like as if everyone says, that it makes sense to have something like that, but no one bothers to implement it.

    I swear ... I will get an aneurism ...
    OF COURSE A LOT CAN BE DONE. THE FACKT THAT IT ISN'T DONE IS THE PROBLEM HERE AND WHY I SAY IT'S AN OLIGARCHY.

    Thanks for highlighting my point again ...

    Besides:

    Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour.../62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/core-reader

    The elephant chart/graph says now. I posted it alreay a couple of times in this topic. Globaly and domestically, the wealth gab has constantly increased, despite any econimcal hick-ups. The big losers, for the last 30 years, has been the middle class.

    Quite a lot of very educated and smart economists are warning that we're actually entering in a very real and completely new era here, due to globalism and many other changes, like the new automation - and yes, the left can be blamed for many of it, but that just by the way.
    Now add to this the crazy liberal idea that everyone is kinda responsible for his own demise, and you get a pretty good recipe for a nation-wide depression at some point.


    This whole shit show, can be traced at the very least as far back as the Clinton era (if not even further), when he made some of the worst decisions, deregulating the financial market for example and making the US the dominating factor on the global stage after the Cold War. The effects of all this, can be even seen to this day. Iraq, Afghanistan and many other policies are a direct idea of this "American Hegemony", that states that America has always to be and always to remain on top, not working together, with powers like China, Russia and even Europe, but to actually always stay above them when it comes to political and military influence.

    And a lot of that, ast least politically, is backfiring right now, because there is only so much that for example China and Russia will accept.

    There is a reason why old cold warriors like Brzeziński and even Kissinger that old war criminal actually warned about the current political direction of the US governments which is aiming at confrontation and power struggle.

    All I am saying is, that he would have been much better than Trump and better than Clinton. Not that he's 'Jesus'.

    Those aren't useless media polls.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/...government-and-why-that-can-be-patriotic.html

    By the way, the same organisation (Pew Research Center) by the way, that is often citied about Islam, Muslims and their view on the Shariah and other religious matters.

    Dude. I am a die hard leftist. I love socialism.

    That''s why I actually FEAR(!) a leftist revolution. To say it that way, I know them. There are some really vile, idiotic and moronic people on 'my' political side of the spectrum, who would love to bash the skulls of people, including but not only the rich. And I am not talking about SJW/PC idiots. The left has won the culture war, and it shows and they have just as much of a problem with science like some of the most moronic idiots on the right, but I am not knowing the insides of the right political spectrum, so I can not talk about them.

    Yes, I want a revolution. But I want a peacefull and reasonable revolution that's based on knowledge and rational decisions where people are free to express their opinion, where we have more equality, but not just on paper but also in the freedom of our choices. And not a 'revolution' of violence.

    But I fear that is exactly where we are heading to in the next few decades, due to the fact how the disparity between wealth and income is growing and how actually NO(!) major party or politican offers any sensible and rational solutions or ideas on how a future society should actually look like.

    A society where a some very few will own an tremendious amount of wealth, where large mega corporations will dominate countless of economical branches (think Nestle, just bigger), and where a large part of the population will have no 'job'.
    This isn't just science fiction or some crazy utopian ideas. Ths is the simple question of what kind of future society we will find our selfs in. A society where apps might tell you what to feel and think, where computers will tell people what to do. And there are a couple of directions that this society can take, of which some are more positive than others.

    It's already now, that people without a job are considered as 'human trash' by many, as lazy and all that. Now imagine if 40% of the population ends up without a job. It could easily be, that we end up in a society which will be heavily divided between those that have jobs and those that don't where the jobs are more less passed on to the next generation just how it happens with wealth right now, without any kind of movement between the 'classes'. And this won't be even about education anymore, since a lot of very high skilled jobs like lawyers might dissapear, IBM is already working on a program to actually function like a lawyer here. And anyone who thinks that's impossible. Well people also taught chess computers would be impossible. And now, they regulary beat the best chess players in the world.
     
  4. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Ninja Lurker

    Oct 27, 2003
    Well, maybe what you want is more of a direct democracy, which we do not have. Also, there is a limit to how much the representative can do, afterall, you cannot make everyone happy. Also, there is such a thing as Tyranny Of The Majority. You, Crni, of all people, should understand, especially about America and our past problems with racism. Again, like I said, representative democracy isn't perfect, but it is the best compromise. Also, again, we have never had such a shitty election situation for a very long time, if ever.

    Some were filthy rich but most were at least, upper class and in comfortable living positions. One does not go to school or have time to play politics and build connections when one has to work most of the day, just to get by.

    It depends on what statements are made. It is like everything else, there are no absolutes. Some of the ideas rich have about the poor are unfair, people being able to succeed based purely on hard work for example. That kind of Horatio Algers story is highly improbable, if not flat out impossible. On the other hand, it would be equally foolish to completely ignore things like money management, the importance of having a stable family unit, even at the expense of personal freedom, not having children before one is ready, etc. It seems like the left is great at shitting on the rich, but not so much at taking a look at its own problems, something you have also said you have had to deal with your fellow leftists.

    So you mean you want to take from the rich and give to the poor correct?

    I cannot disagree with you here, along with the idea of a tax on financial speculation. it is just that Joe Plebe has been so inundated with extremist left ideas, that socialism is pretty much a joke here in the states. What we need is someone who can work with what we have ALREADY, maybe reform it, make it better. The issue here is compromise. We can have a financial speculation tax without going to extremes, like single payer health care and free education, in a time where something like that is not realistic, in the U.S. at least.

    And I have gone to great lengths to explain why having multiple hegemons is a bad, bad idea. You said that globalism would make war obsolete yet many said that before the world wars. Also, as the ME situation shows, the global political stage has many players, ALL of them, jockeying for power. The idea that were it not for U.S. hegemony, the world would be all hippy dippy, is bullshit. History has proved this out repeatedly in the past. SOMEONE, ALWAYS, ends up on top. Being a U.S. citizen, I would prefer that we remain on top.

    China and Russia accepted this fine. China wants to eliminate Taiwan, we told them NO, not going to happen. China still holds onto a past grudge with Japan, but we said, back the fuck off. The SU battled us at every corner, but in the end, couldn't stay afloat. Russia stayed quiet after that, until Putin reared his head. Like I said before, he brought order to Russia, cleaned it up, great. But NOOOO, he wasn't satisfied with that. He wanted to make Russia great again. He wants to turn Russia into the SU, minus the communism. We had a cold war already, let Russia or China expand out of control, we will have another one.

    IMO, Bernie was just as shitty of a choice, just a different kind of shitty. He would be just as guilty with the attack on the middle and lower class with his across the board tax hike. His love for isolationism, his desire to 'play fair', in global politics, will make the U.S. look weak. His racial pandering would make the race problem in America worse, etc.

    TBH, with the way the progressives responded to Bernie, he might as well be Jesus, the kind of zealousness he inspired like the Bernie Bros or, the Bernie or Bust movement.

    And this is what I am talking about. Regardless of whether you agree or not, things like that take TIME. Why do you think violent revolutions happen in the first place? It is because things are so goddamned bad that there isn't any room to make a compromise, the people are not willing to wait. However, in the US. things are different. People DO believe they have the time to make things right. People DO believe that violent revolution is not necessary. Sure people grip about stuff and sure there is income in-equality, but that is part of life. It was in the past and it is like that now. That does not mean the whole democratic process is a sham.

    Sorry, but to me its dramatic and just as dramatic as saying, 'Shooting blacks is a national past time'. This is the kind of stuff that turns people away from the left. I, for example, do not believe the poor are 'trash'. I believe, the poor need to be educated and given the chance to lift themselves up. Some government is needed, but the question is HOW? I disagree with the quota system. I disagree with programs that eventually will bankrupt the middle class the poor, like Sanders. However, a financial speculation tax is a GOOD idea. Glass-Steagall was a GOOD idea. Most jobs that pay salary, that are usually 30k and over, require a degree, no matter how asinine the requirement is. Abolishing that requirement would do a fucking lot, as now you have essentially opened the door for everyone to get a shot at making that kind of money. It is still government intrusion, but of a sort that doesn't hurt small business or the middle class, or the poor, like raising the minimum wage, or taxes, for example.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2017
  5. paeng

    paeng First time out of the vault

    Jan 10, 2007
  6. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    The evidence that our economies and life style is hurting everyone and a real danger to our species seem to pille up and up ... but ... of course we can't dare to change something, I mean think about the jobs.

    The last human should place a grave stone for humanity, so if aliens ever visit this planet they can read "We couln't save our selfs, we had to think about the jobs first".
     
  7. valcik

    valcik Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Dec 20, 2008
    Don't worry, humanity is far from extinction. People stacked in big cities are the most endangered group, especially these legions of modern useless gender/social experts and whatnot. That's the group completely dependant on their jobs and social system, since they lack any practical talent or knowledge and cannot survive on their own.

    Countryside is pretty much self-sufficient without government, so when the shit will hit the fan chances are only city dwellers would be reduced greatly, eating each other.. People with practical education such as engineers, biologists, pharmacists, or medics can exchange their services and knowledge for everything they'll need after the great economy collapse, other would simply perish.
     
  8. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Yeah, because an exodus in to the country side could never ever happen I guess. People will simply stay within their dieing mega cities and wait for their demise to happen.

    Obviously it is very difficult to say what a 'collaps' of our western society would look like, but I doubt it won't have any effect on rural communities and cities - which are not so rural as one might think. Maybe they will have more chances to deal with the effects, but that really depends completely on what the 'rest' of the population will do.

    The big weakness in our society in gernal, is electricity. This also counts for rural comunities. How many people own fridges, how many farms have warehouses, with coolings, how much is technology playing a part in everyones live, be it in cities or in small rural towns with like 5 000 or 10 000 people? If you're talking about a few small communities somewhere in really remote locations which are pretty much completley self sufficient? Sure. I guess they will do fine for the most part. But about how many people are talking here? 10% 15%? Maybe? I have no numbers so that's just a wild guess. Only very few people in our modern societies are truly self sufficient.

    I mean the average person? Everyone would feel a collapse of the electricity grid for example, the whole collapse of government structures, water, food supplies you name it.

    However, It really depends on what you would see as a collapse. Will it happen like from one day to the next where things will happen in a very short time frame like weeks, months or just a few years? Or will it be a gradual process, over decades and one or even two generations, where more and more people will simply deal with a worsening situation?

    It really isn't so different from climate change, where you really can only say that the current evolution is 'bad', but no one can really say how bad it will be. One thing is clear though, we've never seen such a rapid decline and shift in such a short time frame, and that is extremly alarming. Be it with our societies, or with global warming. Everything says, that we're nearing a tipping point and that pretty fast. It's like driving a car where the red light for the engine is constantly on telling us that 'something' isn't right, and all we're really doing is to put a tape over it. I mean it will eventually go out, right?
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
  9. valcik

    valcik Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Dec 20, 2008
    American farmers would be fine. One hardass pitchfork wielding farmer can repel hundred wimpy gender study experts on his own!
     
  10. joevonzombie

    joevonzombie Buried alive in Golgotha

    Sep 28, 2015
    Have you ever actually been to a modern american farm? They're just as dependent on modern technology as anything else.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  11. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I think he wasn't entirely serious. Albeit, he understimates the power of SJWs when they throw them self under a tractor! That would teach the farmers of America a lesson.
     
  12. joevonzombie

    joevonzombie Buried alive in Golgotha

    Sep 28, 2015
    Honestly, with the folks I live around, his post sounds like something the locals would sincerely say. Living in Alabama really fucks with your sarcasm detection.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  13. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Should we still make sure that 'Joe Plebe' can keep his coal mining job?


    Global warming is beyond the “point of no return”, according to the lead scientist behind a ground-breaking climate change study.

    The full impact of climate change has been underestimated because scientists haven't taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment.

    Dr Thomas Crowther’s report has concluded that carbon emitted from soil was speeding up global warming.


    The findings, which say temperatures will increase by 1C by 2050, are already being adopted by the United Nations.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-warming-expert-thomas-crowther-a7450236.html
     
  14. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Ninja Lurker

    Oct 27, 2003
    Well, it is al about selling that job loss. If a politician is saavy enough, he would setup a situation where he could eliminate coal and replace it with something better, nuclear, for example. As for more jobs, use incentives to encourage companies to move into the state. The states have a lot of power to make these kind of decisions, either with tax breaks, deferred taxes for a certain period of time, etc.
     
  15. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Huh, who would have thought ...

     
  16. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Ninja Lurker

    Oct 27, 2003
    So the rich make good financial decisions. Instead of blowing their money on stupid shit they reinvest it, make the money work to get more money.

    And WTF with the banks? The banks ended up loaning money to fucking idiots and look what happened. SERIOUSLY, what kind of fool earns 20k a year and thinks he can afford a 100 or 200k home?

    But yea, he has a point. Our education system sucks and needs to be reformed.

    We need to abolish this shady situation where jobs that do not require college education should not require a college degree.

    Another issue is some of it has to do with unions as there are a lot of jobs in the states, like elevator repairman, that are unionized and although it sounds simple, not a lot of people know how to contact these unions and let them know they want to be an apprentice.

    We could use a tax on financial speculation as that tax would theoretically, only be targeted towards traders and the money people. We could use that increase in money to make existing social programs stronger like unemployment, WIC, nutrition assistance, social security, etc. We need to fix the problems we have NOW, not make new programs with new sets of problems.
     
  17. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Yeah, like with the housing crysis, where a lot of rich fucks became more rich while the 'average' guy was screwed and on top of it the banks got billion dolar bailouts ... the rich make good financial decisions ... for the rich! Which is the whole problem ... the money has to come from somewhere after all. The credit someone owns is also the debth of someone. Most of the financial world is pretty screwed up at this point.
     
  18. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Ninja Lurker

    Oct 27, 2003
    Well, not everyone was part of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Day traders, those who invest their money in worthwhile ventures, those who work commodities, etc, the successful ones can also be counted among 'the rich'.

    Just as these speculators should be taxed, one can also expect people to manage their money wisely. Personal responsibility is just as important, yet, that is often left completely unmentioned by the left.

    Carl is like flat out like, 'The banks do not lend to the poor'. I mean like, WTF is that? Should banks be forced to loan to people who have no possible way of ever repaying back said loan?
     
  19. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dozy northern git

    Nov 22, 2009
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfinance
     
  20. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    *Shrugs*