Brilliantly illustrated analysis of why Capatilism screws us.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if you noticed but the blue dogs got hammered. Almost all the liberals except 5 out of 79 in the house won.

Obama is in the Republican party himself. The challenge will never come from the right. It will be from the left if there is one, which I doubt.

Palin doesn't have a prayer btw.

The Republican primaries will force her to provide so much material it will have comedians going for years. If she's the nominee Obama will destroy her.

The republican nominee is Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Both could win...

And there it is.

While the Dems take turns pissing on each other's leg, Rubio ascends to win the general in 2012.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know if you noticed but the blue dogs got hammered. Almost all the liberals except 5 out of 79 in the house won.

Obama is in the Republican party himself. The challenge will never come from the right. It will be from the left if there is one, which I doubt.

Palin doesn't have a prayer btw.

The Republican primaries will force her to provide so much material it will have comedians going for years. If she's the nominee Obama will destroy her.

The republican nominee is Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Both could win...

I wish I were that certain, but I live in the south, and what I see here in regards to her scares me. I actually hope that you're right.

 

[Anonymous]

And there it is.

While the Dems take turns pissing on each other's leg, Rubio ascends to win the general in 2012.

It could be that I am reacting out of fear, and that is the more likely scenario. However, people have tried to make her go away, and they didn't. She is a ****ing moron, but she does know how to get other ****ing morons to believe she could be president. I still think she has a legitimate shot.

 

[buckwheat]

And there it is.

While the Dems take turns pissing on each other's leg, Rubio ascends to win the general in 2012.

I believe the Tea Party effect will have Republicans violating the 11th? Commandment.

The good news for you is that Rubio's father is a bartender. Maybe the Repubs will bring drinking into the workplace????

 

[Anonymous]

I wish I were that certain, but I live in the south, and what I see here in regards to her scares me. I actually hope that you're right.

Dude, you really should move to Cali. It will change your outlook 180 degrees.

You have family here, right? Man, just bring it. We make New York look like, uh, Mississippi? No, no, no... Arkansas. Would you believe Alabama? How about Montana? Idaho?

 

[Anonymous]

I believe the Tea Party effect will have Republicans violating the 11th? Commandment.

The good news for you is that Rubio's father is a bartender. Maybe the Repubs will bring drinking into the workplace????

Geebus... He really is the perfect candidate.

 

[rhubroma]

Yep. What's coming is the people's realization of how expensive all the free sh!t we get from the government is.

This has always been your weakest and most inane argument. It's also the easiest way one to counter, by pointing out, for example, how much the military costs us, or the disgusting praxis of the US government to privitize public funds and socialize private debt in the interest of business. The costs, therefore, are ultimately irrelevant, but how the machine chooses to spend it.

We can never agree upon anything, Scott SoCal, basically because you are a shameless individualist without compunction, whereas I'm for solidarity. You admire the wealthy, I empathize for the daily plights of the weak.

As I see it, Scott SoCal, America is so enfeebled--and will continue so for at least another half century--that it will never reach another peak. The problem is that we can be saved only by a fundamental and radical revolution, starting with the total destruction of everything, literally everything. But at present we are too feeble to mount such a fundamental and radical revolution. We're not ready for it and daren't even contemplate it. We Americans are so enfeebled, so witless, that anything fundamental and radical is impossible. For I've given up on believing in miracles, Scott SoCal. In any case, I might add, it's unlikely that by the end of the century the world will still exist as we know it, as we have put up with it day after day. I very much doubt that it will. Everything seems to indicate that it will change so radically as to become unrecognizable. Though we won't be around to see it of course, which is a shame. It will be totally changed, totally destroyed. Everything points to this, Scott SoCal. But this vision of mine comes with inbuilt error.

 

[Spare Tyre]

I cannot counter that in any way. There are however plenty of people who see her for what she is, and are not as ignorant as those who support her. We are not all rubes.

But her not being laughed back to Alaska lends credence to my point. I think she will be the next president, and honestly believe it is the surest sign that we are a nation with a malignant growth that is going to end us.

That, and the mess of an economy and national debt of gobsmacking proportions, and failing infrastructure, and people who want services offered by the state and wars in other countries and bailouts for those "too big to fail", but don't want to pay taxes ....

 

[The Hitch]

It's "Democratic" not democrat.

That's a recent passive aggressive invention of the weak chinned, conservative screwballs. Please stop or I'm going to look at it as a provocation.

talk about thin skinned. I dont do it deliberately but at the same time i wont be told what to write.

You want to take it as a provocation, i dont really care one way or the other.

He won't win the nomination I don't believe. He couldn't do it last time, and he won't do it again.

Thats a big reason why i see him as the favourite. Unlike dems who often want new blood, Republicans always give it to the guy who came 2nd last time (with the exception of Pat Buchanan whos a nobody, not a governor, not in congress, not a head of a major organisation.)

76 Reagan runner up - nomination in 80
80 Bush runer up - nomination 88
88 Dole runner up - nomination 96
96 exception. Buchanan wasnt even a politician. So they Give it to Bush in 2000
2000 Mccain runner up- nomination 2008
2008 Romney runner up - ? 2012
In all these cases the runner up has been big big favourite from the get go. The only one who ever even had any doubt was Mccain, but after a stumble he took it comfortably in the end.

He doesn't have enough Tea in his blood for one thing, and he just cannot win the south in primary season in my estimation. You also cannot discount the snowball effect of primaries. You can weight them to an extent, but once someone starts to gain momentum, it is hard to stop, and like I said, she has her own personal media outlet, and it has more viewers than any other single media outlet. Limbaugh loves her. Hannity loves her. All she has to do is stay away from reporters with real questions, and let Fox sell her story. Trust me, she has a serious chance. I would call her the favorite.

Limbaugh and Hannity both love Romney too, and they know that unlike Palin, he actually has a chance of winning. Dont underestimate their hatred for the Dems. Winning is important.

Also he will lose the South in a primary but the South does not represent a majority in the primaries. Who cares about Arkansas, Texas, Alabama when he has New Hampshire - first primary, all of new england, california, the rocky states, Michigan (his father connections, another early state) the pacific, in the bag. Let Huckabee or Palin take the bible belt. With the states in his corner he will have the thing rapped up by super tuesday.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Scott. I dont want to jump on the anti Scott bandwagon, but i just want to look at that 1 comment.

Being an admirer of Marx is, imo in and of itself not neccesarily such a bad thing.

So called Liberals these days do often defend Lenin, Castro, Che, and i agree that all these guys dont deserve such treatment. Lenin set up the NKVD, Castro is a dictator, and Che sent many innocent people into his prisons as well as the capitalists. They used to defend Stalin as well.

Marx on the other hand was not a dictator, didnt kill anyone and i think does not deserve this treatment.

Marx was a great intellectual, who quite simply got it wrong. Im Polish and My country was probably the greatest victim of Soviet Communism (for example, the people who saved Poland from the Nazis, were later taken by the Soviet police and shot, so that they wouldnt serve as an inspiration for others).

But Marx was not responsible for this. His works were valid. In his time, workers would be forced to work 11 hours a day for peanuts. Factory owners could take away pay, beat or even sexually assault workers and if the workers complained they would be fired. He was taking the side of the workers as many great thinkers did at the time. His stages idea was wrong, he believed Communism was destiny and this was wrong too. The Soviets based their model on him but at the same time, Marx did warn revolutionaries NOT to attempt such a revolution in a country like Russia which wasnt even industrialised at the time.

He was wrong in many ways and his ideas dont work, but he was nonetheless a great thinker who took the side of the less fortunate, made some top quality contributions to lieterature and he sure as hell didnt want a totalitarian dictatorship. I dont think theres anything wrong in admiring him.

A very good post and I concur almost completely.

All thinkers make mistakes. It's been said that the best ideas, the ones that drive innovation, knowledge and synergy, are all interesting mistakes. The ideas that are right and everyone agrees with are pretty boring: everyone ignores them and moves on to something contentious.

Marx's communism as destiny thesis is probably incorrect but, as he gave no timeframe for the fall of capitalism and the evolution of public spirit, we might have to wait around a while to see just how wrong he is. Despite some recent scares, nobody's sure we are actually in terminal capitalism just now.

I'm willing to give 'the moor' (as his children refered to him) the benefit of the doubt on the destiny thesis: Marx's doctorate was on classical Greek thinkers and his philosophy is peppered with their influences. In particular, he was taken with Aristotle and his thesis of nature as end-state development. So, although the state of human nature seems to negate egoless compassion at the moment, our natures may yet 'evolve' in that direction over the coming generations. Which is quite a nice thought, really.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Yep. What's coming is the people's realization of how expensive all the free sh!t we get from the government is.

Gee, Scott, sounds like you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

It's hardly free; all those evil taxes pay for them.

 

[Spare Tyre]

A very good post and I concur almost completely.

All thinkers make mistakes. It's been said that the best ideas, the ones that drive innovation, knowledge and synergy, are all interesting mistakes. The ideas that are right and everyone agrees with are pretty boring: everyone ignores them and moves on to something contentious.

Marx's communism as destiny thesis is probably incorrect but, as he gave no timeframe for the fall of capitalism and the evolution of public spirit, we might have to wait around a while to see just how wrong he is. Despite some recent scares, nobody's sure we are actually in terminal capitalism just now.

I'm willing to give 'the moor' (as his children refered to him) the benefit of the doubt on the destiny thesis: Marx's doctorate was on classical Greek thinkers and his philosophy is peppered with their influences. In particular, he was taken with Aristotle and his thesis of nature as end-state development. So, although the state of human nature seems to negate egoless compassion at the moment, our natures may yet 'evolve' in that direction over the coming generations. Which is quite a nice thought, really.

Marx's theories were products of his time and place (as Hitch suggests) and therefore they bear (at least) three of the common biases of his time and culture: firstly, adherence to the notion of teleological progress; secondly, the assumption that what was particular to his time/place etc can be universalized as a meta-narrative and thirdly, a very structuralist notion of how society operates.

He got a heck of a lot right, though. Well, he and Engels.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

This has always been your most inane and weakest argument. The easiest way to counter it is by pointing out how much the military costs us, or the disgusting praxis of the US government to privitize public funds and socialize private debt in the interest of business. The costs, therefore, are ultimately irrelevant, but how the machine chooses to spend it.

We can never agree upon anything, Scott SoCal, basically because you are a shameless individualist without compunction, whereas I'm for solidarity. You admire the wealthy, I empathize for the daily plights of the weak.

As I see it, Scott SoCal, America is so enfeebled--and will continue so for at least another half century--that it will never reach another peak. The problem is that we can be saved only by a fundamental and radical revolution, starting with the total destruction of everything, literally everything. But at present we are too feeble to mount such a fundamental and radical revolution. We're not ready for it and daren't even contemplate it. We Americans are so enfeebled, so witless, that anything fundamental and radical is impossible. For I've given up on believing in miracles, Scott SoCal. In any case, I might add, it's unlikely that by the end of the century the world will still exist as we know it, as we have put up with it day after day. I very much doubt that it will. Everything seems to indicate that it will change so radically as to become unrecognizable. Though we won't be around to see it of course, which is a shame. It will be totally changed, totally destroyed. Everything points to this, Scott SoCal. But this vision of mine comes with inbuilt error.

I admit, I have some radical tendencies lately, hoping our largesse brings us down. In a way, I privately hope goverment inaction on climate change continues just so the world blows up in our faces (although the consequent destruction of other species tempers this ghoulish, misanthropic fantasy).

I agree the Western world, especially bloated, over-indulged and invested America, will never see revolution; the populace is too well-fed, gutless and terminally stupid. Heck, you've got Senators claiming climate change-led destruction can never occur because God Himself promised He'd never allow another flood. That one's a real weasally get-out-of-jail-free-card-for-exceptional-neoAntediluvian-America (not to mention jaw-droppingly inane. You guys have guns, you really should use them).

If it's any solace, I've always admired the words of John Maynard Keynes when confronted with such frustrations: in the end, we're all dead.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Marx's theories were products of his time and place (as Hitch suggests) and therefore they bear (at least) three of the common biases of his time and culture: firstly, adherence to the notion of teleological progress; secondly, the assumption that what was particular to his time/place etc can be universalized as a meta-narrative and thirdly, a very structuralist notion of how society operates.

He got a heck of a lot right, though. Well, he and Engels.

Yes, I agree with this too

 

[rhubroma]

I admit, I have some radical tendencies lately, hoping our largesse brings us down. In a way, I privately hope goverment inaction on climate change continues just so the world blows up in our faces (although the consequent destruction of other species tempers this ghoulish, misanthropic fantasy).

I agree the Western world, especially bloated, over-indulged and invested America, will never see revolution; the populace is too well-fed, gutless and terminally stupid. Heck, you've got Senators claiming climate change-led destruction can never occur because God Himself promised He'd never allow another flood. That one's a real weasally get-out-of-jail-free-card-for-exceptional-neoAntediluvian-America (not to mention jaw-droppingly inane. You guys have guns, you really should use them).

If it's any solace, I've always admired the words of John Maynard Keynes when confronted with such frustrations: in the end, we're all dead.

Yes and in Italy they say: E' inutile arrabbiarsi. Presto il mondo farrà a meno di te. ("It's useless to get angry. Soon the world will do just fine without you.")

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I cannot counter that in any way. There are however plenty of people who see her for what she is, and are not as ignorant as those who support her. We are not all rubes.

But her not being laughed back to Alaska lends credence to my point. I think she will be the next president, and honestly believe it is the surest sign that we are a nation with a malignant growth that is going to end us.

That is a chilling thought.

Beware the suburban idiot-momma-bear. Frightening creatures.

If it weren't so serious, as others have noted, it's uncannily like the film Idiocracy.

Many on her own side of politics think she's unelectable though. Maybe Unke Rupert and the charming rottweilers at FOX will decide differently. It's going to be an anxious two years.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Yes and in Italy they say: E' inutile arrabbiarsi. Presto il mondo farrà a meno di te. ("It's useless to get angry. Soon the world will do just fine without you.")

I love that kind of humility! It brings us all back down to earth.

I think we need to live more like Buddhists: live not in the past, not in the future, but serenely, humbly and respectfully today.

I must sound like a nauseating liberal

 

[Spare Tyre]

I love that kind of humility! It brings us all back down to earth.

I think we need to live more like Buddhists: live not in the past, not in the future, but serenely, humbly and respectfully today.

I must sound like a nauseating liberal

I have a lot of time and respect for Buddhism, but it's so accepting that it's almost a recipe for lying down whilst more powerful sods walk all over you.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Agreed. Watching how far the Dems have fallen since 2008 is nothing short of remarkable. Stunning, in fact.

I'm happy we can agree on some facts, Scott. The fall of the Dems is mirrored by an identical one here in Australia to the Labor Party, the Dem equivalent.

It's due to a lack of courage; parties of the left have traditionally been parties of reform and vision. Obama and Australia's now-deposed Kevin Rudd were inspirational speakers who ended up underachieving in office and being too timid to stand for something.

Of course, Repubs would argue the other way in that Obama is just dangerous! How absurd!

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I have a lot of time and respect for Buddhism, but it's so accepting that it's almost a recipe for lying down whilst more powerful sods walk all over you.

Yes, good point, I've thought about that too. Buddhism may or may not be of much help in the world of real politik. Although he was Hindu, Gandhi did have a lot of success with peaceful protest, however. I think the doctrine of non-violence and non-engagement comes from being renunciators - they reject the material ways of the world.

Their point, I think, is if you fight you're part of the problem too. The idea is to let it all go. That is a committment of a completely different order.

 

[Anonymous]

I admit, I have some radical tendencies lately, hoping our largesse brings us down. In a way, I privately hope goverment inaction on climate change continues just so the world blows up in our faces (although the consequent destruction of other species tempers this ghoulish, misanthropic fantasy).

I agree the Western world, especially bloated, over-indulged and invested America, will never see revolution; the populace is too well-fed, gutless and terminally stupid. Heck, you've got Senators claiming climate change-led destruction can never occur because God Himself promised He'd never allow another flood. That one's a real weasally get-out-of-jail-free-card-for-exceptional-neoAntediluvian-America (not to mention jaw-droppingly inane. You guys have guns, you really should use them).

If it's any solace, I've always admired the words of John Maynard Keynes when confronted with such frustrations: in the end, we're all dead.

Wow. You must be one helluva lot of fun to hang around with.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm happy we can agree on some facts, Scott. The fall of the Dems is mirrored by an identical one here in Australia to the Labor Party, the Dem equivalent.

It's due to a lack of courage; parties of the left have traditionally been parties of reform and vision. Obama and Australia's now-deposed Kevin Rudd were inspirational speakers who ended up underachieving in office and being too timid to stand for something.

Of course, Repubs would argue the other way in that Obama is just dangerous! How absurd!

Oh no, don't start agreeing with the villiage idiot. You will be cast aside by those that know everything.

 

[Anonymous]

This has always been your weakest and most inane argument. It's also the easiest way one to counter, by pointing out, for example, how much the military costs us, or the disgusting praxis of the US government to privitize public funds and socialize private debt in the interest of business. The costs, therefore, are ultimately irrelevant, but how the machine chooses to spend it.

We can never agree upon anything, Scott SoCal, basically because you are a shameless individualist without compunction, whereas I'm for solidarity. You admire the wealthy, I empathize for the daily plights of the weak.

As I see it, Scott SoCal, America is so enfeebled--and will continue so for at least another half century--that it will never reach another peak. The problem is that we can be saved only by a fundamental and radical revolution, starting with the total destruction of everything, literally everything. But at present we are too feeble to mount such a fundamental and radical revolution. We're not ready for it and daren't even contemplate it. We Americans are so enfeebled, so witless, that anything fundamental and radical is impossible. For I've given up on believing in miracles, Scott SoCal. In any case, I might add, it's unlikely that by the end of the century the world will still exist as we know it, as we have put up with it day after day. I very much doubt that it will. Everything seems to indicate that it will change so radically as to become unrecognizable. Though we won't be around to see it of course, which is a shame. It will be totally changed, totally destroyed. Everything points to this, Scott SoCal. But this vision of mine comes with inbuilt error.

You ever notice how most of us can get our point across in a few sentences? I know it's hard but I have confidence you can do it.

I admire hard work and success and that does not necessarily translate to wealth. I have a client who is a gifted grant writer and managed to land a $20,000,000 grant from some rich capitalist named Bill Gates (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). She's not wealthy but does exceptional work and I admire her. I admire Gates too.

BTW, your empathy and $2 will get the weak a cup of Starbucks.

We may in fact see the end of western civilization in our lifetimes. There's clearly the will to run governments the way you espouse.

 

[Anonymous]

talk about thin skinned. I dont do it deliberately but at the same time i wont be told what to write.

You want to take it as a provocation, i dont really care one way or the other.


Thats a big reason why i see him as the favourite. Unlike dems who often want new blood, Republicans always give it to the guy who came 2nd last time (with the exception of Pat Buchanan whos a nobody, not a governor, not in congress, not a head of a major organisation.)

76 Reagan runner up - nomination in 80
80 Bush runer up - nomination 88
88 Dole runner up - nomination 96
96 exception. Buchanan wasnt even a politician. So they Give it to Bush in 2000
2000 Mccain runner up- nomination 2008
2008 Romney runner up - ? 2012
In all these cases the runner up has been big big favourite from the get go. The only one who ever even had any doubt was Mccain, but after a stumble he took it comfortably in the end.



Limbaugh and Hannity both love Romney too, and they know that unlike Palin, he actually has a chance of winning. Dont underestimate their hatred for the Dems. Winning is important.

Also he will lose the South in a primary but the South does not represent a majority in the primaries. Who cares about Arkansas, Texas, Alabama when he has New Hampshire - first primary, all of new england, california, the rocky states, Michigan (his father connections, another early state) the pacific, in the bag. Let Huckabee or Palin take the bible belt. With the states in his corner he will have the thing rapped up by super tuesday.

Your analysis is very good imo. I think there are two problems with Romney. His Mormon beliefs and his Massachusetts Health Care Plan.

"Instead of attacking the real causes of the explosion in costs -- the combination of overly generous state aid and a dearth of competition among hospitals and physician groups -- Massachusetts is vilifying prestigious, non-profit insurers, and punishing them, believe it nor not, with price controls. In April, Governor Deval Patrick refused the request of carriers such as Harvard Pilgrim, the top-rated plan in the country, for premium increases of 8% to 32%. Instead, his administration is refusing all rate hikes over 7.7%; any rate requests the administration rejects are automatically held at 2009 levels."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm

This will become low hanging fruit for his conservative contenders in the primaries.

 

[L'arriviste]

I admire Gates too.

Fascinating stuff as always on this thread.

What is it about Gates that you admire, Scott? This is, as ever, a question asked in good humour and genuine curiosity.

On my admittedly rather lazy reading of history (I wasn't around back then in the homebrew days), Gates took something shared and developed by a community and commercialised it, called it his own and the rest is history.

The man was certainly a self-starter and he has been incredibly successful but somehow that whole approach to innovation feels kind of dissatisfactory to me.