They seemed to have worked well for the United States and its capitalists in the era between its conception and the second world war in which government expenditure was about 3-5% of GDP. — Tzeentch

It did? Check out the 1780s and see how well it worked. The era of true “small government.” Didn’t work so well.

In any case, you’re talking about a state-capitalist system of the 1800s? (Which is all we’ve ever had: state capitalism.) Yes, crash after crash and panic after panic. There’s a reason for the federal reserve system, anti-trust legislation, and eventually Bretton Woods. I don’t consider the days of child labor, robber barons, and enormous monopolies to be a golden age. “Gilded Age,” sure.

On the other hand, take a look at the New Deal/Bretton Woods era, when the state-capitalist system leaned much more into regulations (“regimented capitalism”). That era — from 40s to early 70s — is what most people mean by America’s golden age. Real wages, GDP growth, etc. And no major crash. Corporations — especially the financial sector — all heavily regulated. No stock buybacks, no Friedman Doctrine. The era of corporate managerialism. What was the result there? Better for the employees and for the companies themselves. Much more egalitarian society — at least for white people.

It does no good believing in fantasies of free markets or small government. All it translates to is small government for everyone else except those in power and with wealth. The problem with the New Deal era is that it didn’t go far enough— it was still capitalism.

And this accounts for inflation in Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Argentina, Canada, South Africa, and India?
— Xtrix
Partly yes, — ssu

No. The ECB has essentially nothing to do with it.

No. The reason you see inflation everywhere is due to factors that have nothing — zero — to do with monetary policy.
— Xtrix
This is simply wrong. — ssu

No, it isn’t. Monetary policy of the US does not lead to inflation in all the countries mentioned. They’ve had low rates for years — no inflation. The reason for global inflation has many factors— but the biggest is COVID and the war, and their impacts on supply/demand and especially energy.

The Fed’s policies move asset prices. That’s it. Fiscal policy— the government giving it checks, etc. — has some effect, sure. But it does not account for the higher prices of oil and gas.

What then do you think the reason is? — ssu

See above.

For libertarian or classic liberal ideas to be considered responsible for our current predicament, when the US government hasn't embodied those ideas for a very long time and has essentially moved in the opposite direction uninterrupted. — Tzeentch

Those ideas are mostly nonsense anyway, and would be a disaster if implemented — as all capitalists know. They need a strong state to exist.

Regardless, I don’t see much reservation from “libertarians” when it comes to attributing Venezuela’s economic problems to “socialism.” Everyone can claim it’s not the true policy being implemented — and there’s plenty of truth in it. But let’s be consistent.

Free market capitalism and libertarianism seem very popular patsies, but I don't think that's justified. — Tzeentch

Don’t think what’s justified?

You really think that the ECB multiplying the monetary base many times over won't in the end create inflation? — ssu

And this accounts for inflation in Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Argentina, Canada, South Africa, and India?

No. The reason you see inflation everywhere is due to factors that have nothing — zero — to do with monetary policy.

But by all means keep emphasizing US fiscal policy. This way we can punish the true culprits: working people.

On par with Reagan’s welfare queen myth.

Especially when this was started by the Trump administration, you think it's just a right-wing talking point? — ssu

Yes. Beyond that, it’s also narrow. It accounts for some inflation, sure. No one has denied that. How much? Some have put the estimate as accounting for less than 10%. But even if it’s higher, it’s not the main driver. What’s leading the charge are energy prices, which has a ripple effect. We know why energy prices are up— around the world. It’s not because of the central banks, nor fiscal policy — and certainly not of the Fed or Congress.

Sorry, but nobody is talking about the Modern Monetary Theory now in economic circles. For obvious reasons. — ssu

Neither am I.

I don't think what created this massive transfer of wealth is a result of classical liberal ideas.

It seems to me the result of big business jumping into bed with corrupt, bureaucratic government in an unholy alliance against the common man - crony capitalism. — Tzeentch

Sure— and take a look at the rhetoric. All of it done under the guise of “Government is the problem” and “ the era of big government is over.” We have to shrink the government, because it’s to blame for everything. Deregulate, privatize, cut taxes, etc. We see the results.

Again, I’ll take the New Deal era, when the zeitgeist wasn’t dominated by Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

You've got it exactly backwards. — Tzeentch

Anyone can claim this. And yes, I’m sure you don’t consciously aim to harm people. Nevertheless, what you think is a means to, say, “freedom,” is in reality a fantasy— a useful fantasy to cover the policies of an extreme and rather savage version of capitalism.

Incidentally, I’m not in favor of “big government” or whatever conventional view of present-day liberals you want to ascribe to me. I’m just not fooled by the myths of free markets, individualism, and “liberty” offered by neoliberals as justification for the massive transfer of wealth that’s occurred these last 40 years. That’s certainly not getting us anywhere. So yes, given the choice I would definitely choose the New Deal era.

Except that his actions were based on an official decree by the highest leader in his religion. He wasn't just some nut job who was scribbling manifestos and getting messages from his dog. — Hanover

And the guy who just attacked the FBI in Ohio wasn’t a nut job either. Does he represent mainstream conservatism? I don’t think so, despite the messaging coming from the top (and the media).

I also think it's a stretch to claim he's just one guy who happened to be Muslim and this act wasn't consistent with many to believe being Muslim requires of them. — Hanover

But he is just one guy. If he were Christian, or a Trump supporter, you could ask similar things — fine. I still wouldn’t say it’s mainstream.

I care much more about actions than intentions or beliefs. Although the latter are certainly important, if the former doesn’t represent a real crisis, I’d conclude that there isn’t much to discuss. What do I mean by “crisis”? Is not a man being stabbed on stage a crisis? Statistically, not really. If we see a general uptick in violent attacks, that’s one thing— I don’t see evidence for that yet.

Regardless, the messaging matters. That this was ultimately spurred from a political/religious leader is certainly a problem. I’m against calling for the death of writers — no question. I’m against the calling for the hanging of FBI agents as well. That someone out there eventually acts on this messaging only proves that it has a real effect, and should be doubly condemned. But I’m very reluctant to make claims about Islam or conservatism or Christianity on the basis of what one person tells their followers.

That said, leadership matters and how they react and steer the ship can have profound consequences. And do note that my concerns rest in how leadership has responded and how they've resorted to their theology in responding, or not responding — Hanover

Agreed.

But if you genuinely think the problem of inflation can be dealt with giving more assistance (which is basically printed money) to the people who will use it, then I assume Joe Biden will be happy with you. — ssu

If you genuinely think that inflation is caused, in this case, by giving working people more money, then the neoliberals will be very happy with you indeed.

Inflation is global, and we know why. It’s not because the US gave people more money. Nor the ECB. But if that’s the story you want to latch onto, that’s your choice. Again, having people believe this is wonderful for the ruling class. What a shame you perpetuate it.

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology? — Hanover

What would be considered mainstream? There are a billion or so muslims in the world— and this was an act of one.

Lots has been written, especially by Sam Harris and others, about how Islam inherently encourages violence more than other religions. But it’s just not so simple. For a more complex analysis (in my view), I’d check out Scott Atran.

You do understand that assisting ordinary people (by printing a lot of money) was partly the cause of the inflation now? — ssu

Emphasis on “partly.” In my view it accounts for very little, but it’s telling that you want to highlight this “part” over and over again — rather than COVID or the war. Why exactly I’m not sure, but it’s a right-wing talking point and cover for desired austerity.

This may come as a shock to you, but we're not all sociopaths. — Isaac

Which is what all the small government bullshit boils down to: a view that human beings are essentially sociopathic. Free-market fantasies included.

Governments have been trying to solve socio-economic issues for ages, and they always fail. While not necessarily fixing the problems, the free exchange of goods and ideas has done more to improve the lot of the common man than any attempt by governments. — Tzeentch

Pure fantasy without a shred of evidence.

Just too hard to let go of this belief. Dogma dies hard I guess.

Second Trade Joe's Unionizes.

It continues...

:lol: Exactly.

Is the mind divisible?

Well: what is “mind”?

I only have a problem when people want to banish it from any public forum. — schopenhauer1

I have no desire to do so. And I don’t consider it illogical. I just think it’s silly and those who pick this hill to die on are silly. But like I said, that’s their prerogative!

They generally don't take positions that put values on things. Rather, it is philosophical pessimism, and it's not dressed up. — schopenhauer1

It's dressed up nihilism. Always has been.

Creating joy is not an obligation. Not creating harms where it didn't have to take place is. — schopenhauer1

Neither are obligations. There's either the desire to give life or not. Those who don't want to are welcome. But not everyone views suffering and exclaims "life is refuted," which is what antienatalism rests on. If you don't share that attitude, then the rest is just nonsense. I don't share that attitude.

Again, for those who do -- fine. Then kill yourself, don't have kids, etc. That's your right. But why one wants to go around infecting others with this morbid, anti-life view is beyond me. I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. Carry on!

It's anti-suffering. — schopenhauer1

Also anti-joy and anti-life.

If you’re in favor of not having kids, don’t have any. If you’re arguing that human beings shouldn’t have kids, then you’re anti-life. The result is the end of the species. That essentially says: ”life is evil.” Evil because suffering exists.

Just dressed up nihilism.

Why anyone chooses to go on and on about this — to fight THIS battle — is an interesting psychological fact about them. But nothing more.

The reason it isn’t convincing is because the argument is stupid. It’s fundamentally anti-life. That’s more a matter of mood and temperament than sound reasoning. Nietzsche has plenty to say on this— far more articulate than me.

I’m the opposite of you: I don’t have kids, and I’m not convinced in the slightest.

Tell that to my fellow senior citizens on fixed incomes. :roll: — jgill

There should be assistance to senior citizens. My advice is for them to stop voting Republican. In any case, inflation is temporary. Climate change is existential.

I suppose it's better that they're literally under water or burned in a wildfire?

Australia about to pass a major climate bill.

The bill is expected to pass the Senate next month, after the Labor government secured reluctant support from the Australian Greens, which had pushed for a higher target. And it is being hailed as the most significant piece of climate legislation in a decade, while also being criticized for not going far enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/world/australia/climate-change-bill.html

Sounds familiar. But it’s still some progress.

They simply see that their strategy works — baker

they don't hate human beings in general — baker

Letting them do what they do is convicing them that they're not doing anything wrong. — baker

they're solidary with one another — baker

I have no idea who you’re talking about. I’m talking about anti-social types — specifically, NOS.

But feel free to continue playing the contrarian about something you haven’t read. As usual. :ok:

Not too gloomy. It's going to be a very difficult path indeed.

I didn't know Poland accounted for that much coal use. Guess that should be the focus.

The EU is turning to coal temporarily, and that's bad in the short run. But it'll be better in the longer run, in my view. The war will likely push them to develop renewables even faster, if only to avoid dependence on Russia. But that's in the longer run. This regression is unfortunate in the meantime. But I cut them some slack for it given the circumstances.

Yes, I guess it's a giant conspiracy. My advice: stop wasting time on stupidity.

The bill probably won't do anything about inflation. It's a silly label created so that Joe Manchin can save face.

Inflation isn't important and isn't a problem. What's important is doing something about climate change. This bill takes a few baby steps in that direction.

I really can’t see how anyone whose read anything I’ve written on here for three years can claim I have trust in the political system— or, for that matter, am an “optimist.”

I believe in the power of real people doing real work, especially in solidarity. Which is why I’ve said, repeatedly, that the organizing should continue. I also don’t relegate possible actions exclusively to pressuring governments. I embrace a diversity of tactics.

So I’m not sure what you’re driving at, but it’s at least misplaced.

You're glad for nothing. Way too little too late. — Benkei

Cutting emissions by 40% is better than 27%. That’s reason to be glad. Not nearly enough, but it’s a start.

By no means am I advocating complacency because of this bill. But even this small step wouldn’t have happened without real work. Real work that really isn’t possible if one resigns oneself to defeatism.

After following this all day, your post was the first I heard it passed. :lol:

I’m guessing it passes the house now. I’m shocked this happened at all. Shows the impact of people pushing for it.

Or — this was Manchin’s plan all along: keep whittling it down over time, keep saying no, get everyone thinking it’s dead — then, when you let that linger, come back and give scraps and have everyone forget that they’re being fucked: that it’s nowhere close to the original $6 trillion, which was already too little. In the end we get 400 billion. A drop in the bucket.

A nice psychological trick. Similar to the “low-balling” technique of haggling.

I don’t know if this was all deliberate, but I’m suspicious. This isn’t a great bill. Still, I can’t help being glad they got something.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/02/climate/manchin-deal-emissions-cuts.html

Currently they’re in “vote-o-rama” — more ridiculousness. But it should pass soon.

Regarding climate:




This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?

With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.

We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).

That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.

This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.

Military: $7,500,000,000,000.

Climate: $385,000,000,000.

The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[also posted on climate thread as it’s relevant there as well.]

Worth remembering: we need to cut about 30 billion tons of carbon — globally — by 2030. This bill cuts 1 billion.

Nevertheless:




This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?

With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.

We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).

That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.

This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.

Military: $7,500,000,000,000.

Climate: $385,000,000,000.

The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

I'm not a Buddhist, — unenlightened

I didn’t say you were. But you know best.

What does this mean and what is it contributing?

What’s so awful about pain? Why is some pain worse than death?
— Xtrix

The questions make no sense. — unenlightened

:roll:

It makes perfect sense. Why does one prefer death to pain?

Sometimes the pain is excruciating — that’s obvious. That’s also not what I’m talking about.

The rest of your post is Buddhist cliche.

Again making the mistake in thinking there is something wrong. — Darkneos

It’s not a mistake. If someone “longs for death,” that person has a problem. Unless we want to vacate the words of any meaning whatsoever.

You'd think it'd be easy and I do too. Trust me when I say I've googled painless ways to die — Darkneos

What’s so awful about pain? Why is some pain worse than death?

If one were to take a dive off a tall building they’d be dead.

Anyway— It’s really not that interesting. Feel free to have the last word.

Because getting there, as I already stated, is hard and unreliable as things stand — Darkneos

It’s hard and unreliable to kill yourself? I really can’t see how that’s true, but OK.

As for the survival instinct — yes, true. But supposedly you long for death. If the drive to continue living is greater— then you really don’t want it. If you did you’d be dead already— provided that there are means to do so and, as I already mentioned, there are plenty of ways to do so.

People who consider suicide very often don’t truly want to die — they’re either without meaning and joy or are clinically depressed.

Do you consider yourself depressed? It sounds that way to me. In which case: there are ways out.

as I long for death, — Darkneos

Then why are you still around? I don’t mean this to be callous — and I’m not encouraging suicide — but genuinely curious. If you long for nothingness, why keep going?

its members fail to recognize their own solidarity. — Pantagruel

We see this in unionization efforts. But it’s fairly easy to overcome: just listen to people. They’ll be much more in common than not.

As for large numbers — that’s a problem in anyway system. That’s why we subdivide between regions, states, districts, cities and towns.

Anti-social types love to blather on about markets and free trade — they’re simply merchants who lower everything to the level of transaction, because that’s all they know and thus how they see the world. Then they raise transactions among two people to moral heights.

But they always— always — ignore externalities. That’s not an accident. We’re supposed to forget about the outside world, the community, or other people altogether. What matters is ME and MY transactions.

So it goes for this sick, merchant worldview.

I’ll say it as I’ve said a hundred times: the quicker these poor saps die out, the better. For the sake of future generations.