The most significant problem with this misinterpretation is that it then causes people to mistakenly presume that the primary subject matter of Being and Time is the meaning of being.

It is not.

Instead, the primary subject matter of Being and Time is an explication of Dasein in its average everydayness. — Arne

But always in the context of the question of the meaning of being, which Heidegger repeats over and over again.

The explication of dasein, even in what's published, is oriented towards the goal of eventually re-interpreting dasein as temporality (hence Being and Time). The move will ultimately be: our perspective for interpreting the meaning of being is based in time -- because that's what we are, and we're the one's asking the question about the meaning of being. He'll argue that since the Greeks, being has been interpreted in terms of the present (presence, ousia).

That's the entire thesis.

Wherever his doctrines have been employed there has been nothing but moral and systematic failure on a grand scale. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Didn't realize the United States employed Marxist doctrines.



So then we also agree that capitalism, as a system, is also fundamentally illegitimate -- regardless of how well people are treated in some cases.

what is inherently wrong with owning the means to produce products and services if you got it with your own money or a loan? — schopenhauer1

The very idea of ownership and private property is questionable, but my point was that the capitalist relationship of employer/employee is maintained by a system of laws, many based on these "rights." Let's assume there's nothing wrong with ownership and private property -- regardless, how capitalist corporations are organized is fundamentally undemocratic. There are alternatives to this -- co-ops are a good example, worker councils, etc. That, to me, is the heart of the matter. Why should a small group of people -- a few major shareholders, 10-20 board directors, and a handful of executives get all of profits generated by the entire workforce? Furthermore, why should the majority of the workforce have no say whatsoever in determining what to do with those profits? Do you find this to be just way of conducting affairs? Why not some other way?

It may have been OK if the ruling corporate class didn't become so greedy. If, for example, they re-invested in the company infrastructure, workers pay and benefits, community, etc., instead of giving 90%+ of their profits to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. It's precisely this way of conducting business -- the neoliberal way -- that has really decimated the society and has led to such anti-capitalist sentiment. Almost nothing can be worse for capitalism than neoliberalism, which is what we're living under currently (and for the last 40 years).

The way that "wage slavery" works today in a practically non-unionized work force is that employers, whether capitalists, governments, or non-profits have control of the economy and of the workforce. [workers are not unionized for a reason: employers have been waging a continuous war against unions. Put it this way: unionism didn't die out, it was murdered.] — Bitter Crank

:100:

If we address what should be the case, instead of what is the case (I assume we are doing that), I can think of no reason why relatively few people should make and retain huge amounts of money while others do not, and in fact have much less. There's no basis for the belief that a person is virtuous, or admirable, or worthy, or good in any moral sense because they make or have a great deal of money, unless making or having a great deal of money is considered to be morally virtuous, admirable, worthy or good by definition.

If it isn't, though, we have to consider the worthiness of having a great deal more money and assets than others in a world of limited resources with an increasing population. I think that the very rich are the equivalent of gluttons or hoarders in such a world--in our world--because their conduct is so selfish that they strive to possess and retain much, much more than they could possibly need to live comfortable lives (not just survive) where others merely survive, or live in need and want. Gluttons and hoarders aren't admirable; they aren't moral. We should stop thinking they are. — Ciceronianus

This is excellent. Incredible how often something so plain is overlooked. It's a stupid game, one with no limits -- no cap. People can hoard and hoard to infinity, all under the rationale that "innovation and hard work" would cease if you took away the "incentive" to accumulate endlessly.

How about a food truck driver that starts a restaurant and then a chain, and then franchises and becomes a multimillionaire? He will say that he used his capital and wits to do this and employs people who voluntarily sell him their labor as a result. — schopenhauer1

There are many scenarios, especially in the cases of small businesses, that are run by families, friends, etc. There are sole proprietorships and partnerships of two or more people, etc. Some are run by decent people who treat others with respect, pay decent wages, etc. But again this ignores something important: the very system of power. There were, after all, very decent slave owners -- but you wouldn't argue, I presume, that this fact justifies the system of slavery?

So if there's a sweeping generalization being made here, I think it's about the very heart of the capitalist system itself, which from my point of view (and others) a particular arrangement of control, dominance and authority -- that is, a relationship of power. It is defined not as lord and vessel, King/Queen and subjects, master and slave -- but of employer and employee.

The "employer" in many cases isn't only one person but a group of people, who maintain their position through laws surrounding ownership and property rights, which is a gift from governments (that create and enforce those laws). So it's a socioeconomic system that is maintained by governments, and isn't at all inevitable. This system is, in fact, deeply undemocratic -- which is plainly obvious for anyone who works in a company with such a "capitalist" structure.

...and the 80/70%? You think they've made their decision rationally because...? It happens to be the same as yours? — Isaac

A good deal of them are making the decision because of media, what their doctors say, etc. So I would say they're making a correct decision, in that it corresponds to the consensus of experts, but not necessarily made through extensive thought or research.

Corporate science says everyone must take the vaccine and you unquestioningly fall in line. They say 'jump' you say 'how high?' — Isaac

I realize this is your take on the matter, yes. It's stunningly ridiculous.

I'm not listening to "corporate science," I'm listening to science.

Maybe you have disagreements about quantum theory as well. Does my listening to the consensus about quantum theory mean I'm only following "corporate physicists"?

You fail to see, repeatedly, why there's even this level of "debate" and "controversy" to begin with. Those who are just "asking questions" about last year's election make similar claims about skepticism. What they fail to see is that their skepticism on this particular issue isn't an accident to begin with. It's a product of our current intellectual climate, which has its causes -- many of which I've gone over already, and which vaccine "skepticism" is simply another example of. That the 2020 election was stolen is also believed by many people -- and it's irrational. Do we say those who believe the election was legitimate are equally irrational because they don't know the ins and outs of state election laws?

The science and medical consensus on vaccines is overwhelming. They're safe and effective. The expert consensus on the election is that it was free and fair. Many people believe otherwise in both cases. My point is: there are reasons for this. The reason, in part, is years of consuming media that systematically undermine trust in science, expertise, government, academia. It's anti-intellectual and usually conspiratorial. This was the point, and it still stands.

So? That doesn't therefore mean it's in their interests to provide those facts to us, unfiltered. What they themselves benefit from knowing and what they benefit from us thinking are two completely different things. — Isaac

Of course. Polling is a good example.

Where's your impartial, non-media, evidence of the 'overwhelming consensus' you keep referring to? — Isaac

There is overwhelming consensus that vaccines are safe and effective, and should be taken by those eligible. I'm not interested in "debating" this again. If you want to continue your quest, you're welcome to. The point made wasn't exclusively about vaccine resistance, which is only one symptom of a larger problem.

I assume then, you're in favour of people doing their own research? — Isaac

Of course.

When someone like Vinay Prasad speaks out against promoting vaccines for children, he's obviously concerned about the suffering of the children. What makes you think you've the monopoly on concern? — Isaac

I don't. I think you misread what I wrote or I didn't communicate it effectively. I was in that case describing my own emotional reactions -- that they arise mostly out of concern for the continuation of the human experiment.

No insisting that any mention of the word 'politics' must refer to your party ties is what assumes that. — Isaac

Fair enough, I suppose. I have no idea what political factor you're referring to, in this case.

Hospitals are government and media?
— Xtrix

Absolutely. — Book273

Hospitals are not governments, and they're not media.

Oh but I forget. There's a crisis on, so we all must pretend that hospitals are all run by Dr. Kildare. He wouldn't massage any figures would he? — Isaac

We should listen to experts and have reasonable faith in our scientific and medical institutions and processes, whether in a crisis or not. The real crisis, however, is why non-experts (like you) pick certain issues to "question" and not others. That very choice is not an accident, whether it's about election fraud or vaccine efficacy. Millions believe in election fraud -- and I bet every one of these people feel that they're the exception, in that that they came to this belief on their own free will.

I had someone just tell me almost exactly the same thing about election fraud -- that I'm the dupe for trusting in government data. That's an interesting fact.

No. I mentioned (bolded for your reading pleasure).

The idea that 20-30% of people's failing to take the vaccine is problematic is something you've repeated because it's been told to you by government agencies and media.
— Isaac — Isaac

I've already mentioned several sources which I (and apparently you) find credible.

But I don't remember saying 20/30% is "problematic," I said that after years of consuming media that systematically undermine academia, expertise, science, research, and truth, there is an outgrowth of stupid decisions. Perhaps it's the word "stupid" you object to -- fine. Irrational is better. Many (though admittedly not all, but i would argue MOST) of that 20/30% are making these decisions irrationally, partly based on the consumption of the media I mentioned before (in this case, conservative media -- talk radio and Fox News in particular and for longer; social media like Facebook more recently). I don't necessarily include you in this group, but I don't remember much about my exchange with you.

Your argument that it's a problem (the low vaccination rates), relies on studies and data produced by exactly the corporations and governments (and presented in the exact media) you've condemned for 'leading us astray'. — Isaac

If you consider science and medicine somehow part of corporate and social media (which I what I was talking about) or governments, fine. I don't. If we discount all science that is funded by corporations or government, we're ruling out a lot indeed. I think it's important to be skeptical, but remember that it's in the interest of corporations and governments to get facts, to really know what's going on -- if for no other reason than that it increases their power, control, wealth, self-interests, etc. I mentioned polling as one example. That's extremely important to companies -- they want accurate polling, not simply what they'd like to hear -- because it turns out being delusional about the world is often a very poor policy, especially when it comes to numbers.

In any case, I never accused the government of "leading us astray" in this case, nor corporations, because I think both happen to be (reluctantly) doing the right thing by following the advice of experts. They haven't done that great a job -- I think, much like with climate change, that we should be following more of the prescriptions, the programs that scientists and experts are advising. Here we're back to where I think we discussed consensus -- and I argue in favor of following the consensus, particularly if it's overwhelming.

You trusted governments, media and corporations to do those things for you and decided to believe the results you were thereby handed. — Isaac

So listening to experts, and to the evidence and studies that they cite from credible sources, and even looking at the sources directly (science and medical journals), I would hardly qualify as "trusting government and corporations." It is true that journals and academic research publications generally, are a type of "media." They are not corporate media.

So yes, one thing you mentioned is technically true: I'm trusting a form of media. Short of polling people myself and seeing and collecting evidence first hand, as you mentioned, and which is absurd, I have to often rely on media. If I speak to friends who are also experts in a given field, if not dealing with them face-to-face, I have to rely on e-mail, telephones, texts, and even letters -- all are a kind of medium. If we want to get technical. Bottom line: yes, I mostly trust experts and the reasons and evidence they present.

Yes. you said you trusted the hospital data. I assume you're polling them yourself. Otherwise it's not the hospital data you're trusting is it, it's the data of whomever tells you they've polled the hospitals. — Isaac

Who cite their sources, which come mostly from hospitals, doctors, researchers, etc. True, they could all be wrong. So could mechanical engineers and quantum physicists. But I usually have to assume they know what they're talking about. I extend the same approach to general medicine and epidemiology.

You were earlier imploring that we not 'do our own research'. Now you're saying we should listen directly to the experts. Which is it? — Isaac

When did I say that?

I seriously doubt you have even close to the expertise to judge the accuracy of an article in the Lancet. — Isaac

It's not very difficult to follow research papers. Those that make the top journals are usually clearly written as well. What you mean by "accuracy" I can't say -- there is, again, a large degree of trust involved. But I take the attitude that even I wanted to learn further or look into the experiments or data myself, that what I found would align with the data, results, and evidence that's being presented.

I never claimed to be myself an expert in medicine. Rather, I said I listen to the experts.

This idea that you're just impartially constructing an opinion by listening, unfiltered, to the experts is transparently bullshit. — Isaac

Right, but I never once made that claim. Of course I'm partial -- I hold a particular set of values and beliefs. I hold a perspective. That's everyone, I would say. I try my best to put emotions aside -- that I'm less successful with. But that frustration, even borderline contempt, really is rooted in wanting to see human beings thrive rather than suffer and die. I wouldn't mistake this flaw as having much to say about my analysis, beliefs, principles, and conclusions.

You choose the experts you're going to listen to on the basis of whether they're supporting the message your politics inclines you to believe. — Isaac

But this assumes I'm in the two-party trap which I've already myself condemned. This gets launched at me occasionally, but I see no evidence of it. I have made no secret of my voting record and rationale for it, of what I think of our political and economic system, of the power of misinformation and social media bubbles, who I follow/consult/listen to, what sources I trust, etc. I feel no loyalty to any political ideology, even anarchism. It's whatever our current situation calls for -- a kind of pragmatism perhaps. Is that the "message" that's being supported by Nature, Science, the Lancet, the New York Times, the WSJ?

Because there’s no evidence whatever to believe these numbers are inaccurate.
— Xtrix

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355437113_Discrepancies_and_inconsistencies_in_UK_Government_datasets_compromise_accuracy_of_mortality_rate_comparisons_between_vaccinated_and_unvaccinated

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/ — Isaac

You had mentioned the number of people vaccinated. These articles have nothing to say about that. They’re talking about vaccinated and unvaccinated death rates.

None of those publications record death rates. — Isaac

I never once mentioned death rates.

Hospitals are government and media? Medical journals are government and media?
— Xtrix

So you're polling hospitals directly yourself? And yes, journals are media. — Isaac

Polling hospitals myself? Is this a serious question?

Journals are not corporate media — which was the topic. My fault, I guess, for not specifying the obvious.

Uh huh, and "thankfully you’re here to weed it all out for us." — Isaac

No — I simply encourage people to listen to the science and to medical experts. I’ve said that from the beginning, and have been very transparent about my sources and about what sources I take seriously. I take the Lancet seriously; I don’t take social media or corporate opinion shows seriously (as most Americans do, and which was the initial —uncontroversial — point I was making).

Sorry that you struggle with truisms in your quest to defend vaccine “skepticism.”

I see no reason to distrust the figures from hospitals and medical establishments on this particular issue.
— Xtrix

Yes. That's clear from what you've already written, but since you're not the Oracle of Delphi we expect reasoning or justification for your beliefs. Its a discussion forum. It gets a bit boring if it's just an exchange of pronouncements. I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in your reasons. — Isaac

Because there’s no evidence whatever to believe these numbers are inaccurate. True, there could be a vast conspiracy — but that’s on you to show.

There's no contradiction. They've simply created a monster, as I said before, that now they cannot subdue.
— Xtrix

Again, reasons please, not just opinion. — Isaac

Reasons for what?

I think the reasons behind conservative media are fairly straightforward: appeal to advertisers, stoking hostility and prejudice, etc — all very good for business. Ditto for MSNBC.

After years of Rush Limbaugh and the undermining of truth, it’s no wonder that people are confused about whether to take a safe, effective vaccine. Or whether the election was “stolen,” etc.

These are symptoms, from years of media conditioning that has systematically undermined science and expertise.

to.

I'm not using information from the sources I mentioned. I don't get my information from social media or corporate media (NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, etc).
— Xtrix

So where do you get your information from? — Isaac

From scientific journals and medical journals, mostly. The Lancet, Science, Nature, etc. I also read the Times, WSJ, etc.

So corporate media is prepared to steer society off a cliff, encourage mass deaths and leave no habitable earth for our grandchildren, but apparently infusing actual news stories with bias is one step too far for them? Who are these people? — Isaac

Straw man.

Not once did I say corporate media is “prepared” to steer us off the cliff. In fact corporate America happens to be aligning itself with science and facts when it comes to vaccines — why? Because they’re not idiots, and when it comes to their bottom line they’re very serious. Same with polling.

Perhaps it’s helpful for you to pause 5 seconds before responding to what you THINK I’m saying, and look at what I’m ACTUALLY saying.

But the data you're basing your conclusions on doesn't come from medical experts. It comes from the government and the media. — Isaac

Hospitals are government and media? Medical journals are government and media?

I'll try and make the distinction really simple for you... — Isaac

Yes, because I’m definitely the one struggling to understand here. :roll:

I really don't know how much more gently I can break this to you, but governments lie. — Isaac

Riveting analysis. Thank you for the insight.

Filters largely controlled by corporate or political interests, filters with their own personal biases. — Isaac

Yes, and thankfully you’re here to weed it all out for us.

The reality is you’re as much a victim of the info-demic as the suckers who believe the election was stolen, repeating exactly the same lines and “challenging” sources and the very nature of truth and facts just to maintain their conditioned beliefs. Yes, I know you reject this assessment.

The issue isn’t science and medicine — or even government. The issue is that most Americans listen to opinion shows, run by corporate America, and are stuck in information silos via social media. That is what’s accelerating these whacky beliefs and stupid decisions, not to mention our divisions. There’s nothing controversial about this — it’s well documented and rather obvious. You want to somehow appropriate this fact and apply it to science and medicine, a la Trump and “fake news,” but that’s your issue, not mine.

If most of the money is going to stock buybacks and dividends, my question is why do they do that? who decides, the CEO? You mentioned that it hasn't always been that way....how and why was it different? — John McMannis

All good questions. The people who decided are generally the board of directors and the CEO. Sometimes the CEO is also the board chairman.

Why do they decide to give so much back to shareholders -- in the form of dividends and boosting the stock prices by buying them back? It's because of a way of thinking that's started to grip academia and corporate America in the 1970s and 80s: the shareholder doctrine, also know as the "Friedman Doctrine." This states that the shareholders are the true owners, and that a company's sole responsibility is to make a profit for its owners. This is what's believed. The policies that followed, starting with compensating CEOs with stocks and allowing buybacks again (rule 10b-18) are both justified by this way of thinking.

That's beginning to change now, as the Business Roundtable and other major business lobby groups have started talking about the "stakeholder doctrine" instead. So far just words.

It indeed hasn't always been that way. I mentioned the 50s and 60s -- there corporate governance was different, and with much better economic results.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-bizroundtable/if-corporations-dont-put-shareholders-first-what-happens-to-business-judgment-rule-idUSKCN1VC2FS

You said...

we're losing the battle of education, knowledge, facts, information, communication, etc.
— Xtrix

...then said...

Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace.
— Xtrix

Since the most powerful group in that list are the pharmaceutical companies themselves, who are pushing the pro-vaccine agenda. So it's hard to see how you're blaming them for ignorance (wherein I assume - perhaps wrongly - you're referring to anti-vaccine sentiment) — Isaac

My point wasn’t about the anti-vax movement. It was about the divided, confused, and completely irrational state of affairs we’re living in. Vaccine irrationality, like election irrationality, is but one symptom. I do indeed blame the powerful for this — they’ve created this monster that they can no longer control. As I said before, it’s due to 40 years of policies that have decimated the populace and years of brainwashing/cultivating irrational attitudes. — Xtrix

The idea that 20-30% of people's failing to take the vaccine is problematic is something you've repeated because it's been told to you by government agencies and media. — Isaac

I see no reason to distrust the figures from hospitals and medical establishments on this particular issue.

The point about corporate media brainwashing people is fairly straightforward, especially in conservative media -- which has now gone off the rails completely. Fox News being a prime example. However, they and their corporate backers generally want people to take the vaccine -- because it's good for business (won't have to lock down again, etc).

There's no contradiction. They've simply created a monster, as I said before, that now they cannot subdue. Even Trump was booed when he said "get the vaccine, it's good." That's not contradictory either.

Corporate media and social media (but I repeat myself) are leading more and more people into conspiracies and bogus beliefs and into silos. That is clear.
— Xtrix

... you can't then use the information you've acquired from the very sources you've just accused of misleading, to argue that they're not (on this occasion) misleading. — Isaac

I'm not using information from the sources I mentioned. I don't get my information from social media or corporate media (NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, etc).

But even if I did, there's a real difference between straight reporting and opinion sections. "Commentators" like Sean Hannity et al. are far more influential than the Fox Newsroom. Take a look at the Wall Street Journal, as well. A very good newspaper -- yet their editorials are to the right of Attila the Hun.

Not sure what you're struggling with here.

The data you're basing such assessments on comes from the very organisations you've just indicted in leading us astray. — Isaac

I never accused medical experts of leading us astray. I've accused the corporate media for leading many people astray, to the point that they're now ripe for making stupid decisions, like refusing to wear masks or take the vaccine.

People who take 18th century values seriously are against concentration of power. After all the doctrines of the enlightenment held that individuals should be free from the coercion of concentrated power. The kind of concentrated power that they were thinking about was the church, and the state, and the feudal system, and so on, and you could kind of imagine a population of relatively equal people who would not be controlled by those private powers. But in the subsequent era, a new form of power developed — namely, corporations — with highly concentrated power over decision making in economic life, i.e., what’s produced, what’s distributed, what’s invested, and so forth, is narrowly concentrated.

The public mind might have funny ideas about democracy, which says that we should not be forced to simply rent ourselves to the people who own the country and own its institutions, rather that we should play a role in determining what those institutions do — that’s democracy. If we were to move towards democracy (and I think “democracy” even in the 18th century sense) we would say that there should be no maldistribution of power in determining what’s produced and distributed, etc. — rather that’s a problem for the entire community.

And in my own personal view, unless we move in that direction, human society probably isn’t going to survive.

I mean, the idea of care for others, and concern for other people’s needs, and concern for a fragile environment that must sustain future generations — all of these things are part of human nature. These are elements of human nature that are suppressed in a social and cultural system which is designed to maximize personal gain, and I think we must try to overcome that suppression, and that’s in fact what democracy could bring about — it could lead to the expression of other human needs and values that tend to be suppressed under the institutional structure of private power and private profit.

Noam Chomsky

Figured I'd throw this here.

The principle of voluntary cooperation, wherever found, but especially in trade, is morally sound. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Which is why I think they should bring back child labor. The kids did it voluntarily, after all. We'll just ignore the conditions under which these very-morally-sound "contracts" take place.

You have the freedom to be a wage-slave, so it's all good. You can choose not to -- i.e., you can choose to starve to death or be homeless. That's just life.

Always delightful to see such a pathological way of thinking be put on display.

CEOs/business owners provide incomes, healthcare, and even vacations for their employees. They can move to a new CEO/business owner's domain (business) if they want. — schopenhauer1

You already give away your position with these statements.

CEO pay has hit astronomical levels while real wages have stagnated -- for the last 40 years. Making 300X what an average worker makes is itself ridiculous, to say nothing of the entire employer-employee relationship, which was viewed as another form of slavery not too long ago (and which has been apparently forgotten). The legitimacy of this relationship should by no means be taken for granted.

The second statement is simply another neoliberal talking point. People are "free" to simply pack up and go get another job that's better. It's about as informed and compassionate as "let them eat cake."

The basis for technology is businesses interacting with other businesses to gather the goods/services to create products that sell and sustain their workers. — schopenhauer1

Complete nonsense. The basis for much of the technology of today -- including what we're using right now, computers and the internet -- was developed from public funding. It later gets handed off to private hands who then reap the profits.

Don't be fooled by free-market fantasies and corporate myths about innovation.

Why argue with someone who voted for Trump and whose "opinions" you can predict by simply watching whatever the Fox News hosts say?

That's the only real question. Because it's fun is the answer, I guess. But don't think for a second that you'll get anywhere.

They themselves are a part of the government, of course, but they're given this special privilege.
— Xtrix
Technically they aren't. — ssu

"Technically" they're both public and private, but that's really just silliness. They're a government agency. Here I agree with Friedman.

but basically what already Adam Smith and Maynard Keynes noted. So this isn't a purely monetarist view here. — ssu

Smith and Keynes never stated that inflation is always a result of changes in the money supply, which is what the claim was initially. The Fed controls the money supply.

But remember not long ago there was a surplus, not a deficit.
— Xtrix
When? During the Clinton era? — ssu

Yes. I believe it was 1998 or around there.

How they operate is that they simply will continue with the same old ways until we have a crisis. — ssu

Yes indeed.

. And it's capitalism that is crushing us and will, in all probability, be terminal for us. The Fed plays a large role in all of that, no doubt -- but it's not completely their fault.
— Xtrix
Likely it isn't so terminal. Just look at us now in the midst of global pandemic where millions have died an the World has been locked down in spectacular ways. Things go on. — ssu

I was talking there about climate change. But it applies equally well to nuclear weapons and pandemics as well. How we respond when a virus comes around that's both highly transmissible and highly deadly, which is inevitably going to happen, is the real story. If COVID is a trial run, it's not looking good on that front either.

Again, it's hard to see the connection, but one important thing behind it all is essentially greed, the desire for more and more money and power, and the adherence to the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind" (Adam Smith) of "all for ourselves and nothing for other people" -- or "gain wealth, forgetting all but self."

As long as we keep behaving as if this is what we believe (whether we profess it or not), it will indeed be terminal.

But my point is that we can't get very far if we don't identify the root of the problem, if for no other reason than to prioritize attacking it.
— Xtrix

But it's already been identified, more times than can be counted. At this point it's just shuffling papers around, a temporary catharsis. — _db

You're right. So maybe a better thread is to discuss solutions, goals, programs, etc. I'll create one for that alone -- although it may exclude some people who don't yet see it this way, or any way at all perhaps. But that may be a more interesting line to take.

I'm not sure what you mean by "technique" here. Technology?
— Xtrix

Technique is the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency [...] in every field of human activity. — _db

What rational methods? Give an example. Are games and music also "technique"? Why not use the word in the Greek sense of techne instead?

I am skeptical that sociological problems can be fully explained by the behavioral habits of the elite. I would argue that even the elite feel the coercive pull of technique. It is technique that is the puppet master. — _db

Again, I may agree with you but I'm failing to see how "methods rationally arrived at" (technique, according to your citation) exert a coercive pull? Do you mean cell phones, computers, the Internet? Cars, planes, roads, electricity, the telegram, and television? All of these entities I would consider technology, and thus agree they have an enormous pull on everywhere, including the concentrations of wealth and power in the world.

Still, it is the elite's ideology that prevails. Why? Because the decisions they make, the influence they exert, and the control they wield (which is what I mean by "powerful") is ultimately grounded and justified in a particular picture of the world -- that means of life, of human beings, and of life's purpose. That is as much true of Pope Innocent (in terms of Christianity) in medieval times as it is for Jamie Dimon and Larry Page (in terms of capitalism) today, and for that matter the rest of the bourgeoisie (to use Marx's terminology).

So I see it as more guided but beliefs, perceptions, perspective, attitudes, values -- than I do in terms of technology's pull. But I know some interesting people, present and past, who make a compelling case for the latter. It's an interesting conversation to have one way or another.

I don't hate them, they just never moved me. But I'm not fan of pop or rock music in general. I know almost nothing of my own generation's music except what I was exposed to by osmosis (films, advertisements, etc). — Tom Storm

You're probably the better for it. Still, I'm definitely an apologist for (some) popular music.

I'm not even a fan of The Beatles — Tom Storm

Really? Ah, I still love the Beatles. It's cliched, because of all that's been written about them and their general iconic stature, but it's true. Glad you were able to appreciate them at least once.

I think smoking a lot of weed made me a Heideggerian for a while — Manuel

:lol:

I can see that, I suppose.

I forgot about Viagra and such. I've yet to try any of those ED meds. I don't have ED, but I know that many take them anyway. I suppose as I get older it'll be an inevitable experience. When it comes to sex, though, my experiences have been very different from what others claim. Especially with MDMA. If I were to give any advice in that department, it would probably be alcohol or marijuana, or both. Maybe some amphetamines if one needs energy.

Insofar as one pays attention to one's own attention during and after one "trips", the grip (habit) of ego-other (self-morethanself) duality reflectively loosens. — 180 Proof

Yes indeed. It can be rather disquieting. It elicited a lot of fear in me for a long time, in fact. But in the long run it was very beneficial.

I have found that caffeine helps with clear rational thinking and, this was initially through taking caffeine tablets when I was a student. I sometimes took more than the recommended dose and my thoughts were racing. I was using it like a form of speed and it was during this time that I stopped going to church and questioned religion. — Jack Cummins

That's interesting. For myself, caffeine has never had that big an effect on me and I never much liked it. I still drink coffee occasionally out of boredom, but the effects are usually jitteriness. Perhaps oddly, I much prefer the dexmethylphenidates to caffeine or other "uppers." On those, I have similar experiences you're describing. I feel much more clear and productive. Perhaps that's because I'm ADHD, who knows. I imagine we all are a little bit these days.

But, swallowing morning glory seeds was great in the sense that I could see images on the door but was not completely stoned and was able to sketch the images. The biggest problem with morning glory seeds is that they are coated in poison to deter people from eating them. I had stomach ache during the night after taking them and, perhaps, 2 packets of seeds are somewhere inside me still. — Jack Cummins

I have no idea what morning glory seeds are. I've somehow managed to miss this completely in my life. I'll google it.

Absinthe is a bit tempting to try but I am not sure that it such a good idea.. — Jack Cummins

I've always wanted to try absinthe too. Never got around to it.

I did find heroin and morphine to provide the best experience of overall wellbeing and peace I've every felt, but there was no concomitant insight or clarity. — Tom Storm

What about psychedelic drugs?

I have one high-CBD strain that seems to facilitate hyper-focus, great for reading and writing. I find I read a little slower, but I really squeeze every last drop of meaning out of every sentence; often I'll anticipate upcoming developments in the text. — Pantagruel

Edibles do the trick for me. CBD never seems to have a big effect. Oddly enough -- and I forgot to mention this -- years ago a friend of mine had an expensive bottle of vitamin B12 complex, and after taking on of those I felt very alert and very much like what you're describing here: focused, reading much more carefully, etc. Goes to show positive effects can come from anywhere, really.

Listening to music (classical) is the only experience that's ever felt transcendent or epiphanic — Tom Storm

listening to music (jazz) — 180 Proof

I also have the music going constantly. Renaissance classical or instrumental jazz. — Pantagruel

Sure, when it comes to things beyond drugs, then music, walking, meditating, yoga, martial arts, etc., are very important to me as well.

As far as music goes while under the infleunce, I once was on ecstasy and high on marijuana, and listened to one of Bach's fugues; nearly lost my mind.

Mostly though, for the last +two decades, sober clarity via vigorous activity (e.g. daily walks, frequent hikes, less frequent bike rides) has been the thing that really does it for my head. — 180 Proof

You must have tried that combo as well, no? I once took half a weed "gummy" (so 2.5 mg) and took a walk in the New England woods. I was there for 7 hours. Normal walk: hour and a half, two hours. I had two ticks on me, but otherwise it was well worth it. Yet I haven't done so again -- there's still something about me that wants to appreciate things without any "help."

Strong black coffee in the morning, usually half a pot. An IPA or two in the evening. Both paired with a book. Larger amounts of alcohol make me sleepy and irritable. — _db

What's an IPA?

9/10 times marijuana will give me a panic attack. I experienced a terrifying sort of ego death one time with a concentrate, but it might have been spiked with something else; it was kind of a stupid decision on my part to take it. I'm curious about acid and mushrooms, but I don't know how I would handle it based on my previous experiences. — _db

That's a very common experience. I would say not to let it scare you away and to get back on the horse, just with a lower dose that you know isn't spiked. You probably just took too much. After that, you can probably handle mushrooms and acid, although they are different experiences.

I had a panic attack once from smoking too much weed while also alone, tired, and coming down with a cold. Not too bright. I felt my mind was out of control -- like images and memories could pop in any minute, and it was quite frightening. But eventually I started up again and was fine. Like anything, you don't want to over-extend. But it all depends on whether you even care about it. I find it to be worthwhile sometimes, but to each his own.

But central banks providing money for governments for wars and stuff is a historical fact, which one cannot disagree with (and I think you agree with me on this). — ssu

Of course. I still don't see the relevance.

The US central bank, the Fed, lowers and raises the federal funds rate through mostly through bond purchasing -- treasury notes, bills, and bonds. Treasuries are issued by the treasury to make up the difference between revenue (mostly taxes) and spending. So the Fed buying treasuries is, in a sense, funding all kinds of government spending. That's buying government debt. They themselves are a part of the government, of course, but they're given this special privilege. They pay for this by "printing money," which is now done by creating numbers on a computer.

All of this I assume you know very well. But the original issue was about inflation. The Fed is in charge of monetary policy, which plays a role in inflation -- no doubt about it. But Friedman's thesis, that inflation is "everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon" just doesn't seem to apply everywhere and always. I gave the example of gas prices. I suppose that can in some way be connected to the money supply, but a much more simple explanation exists. That was the point.

Which takes us back to the fundamental question: the US is uncapable of doing anything else than deficit spending and now it's own central bank has had to buy a huge share of that new debt. Furthermore: nothing, absolutely nothing will happen before there is a huge crisis. The Republicans spent as there's no tomorrow (let's remember that it was Dick Cheney who said "deficits don't matter") and so do the Democrats. The Republicans just bitch about the issue when they are in opposition, and hence leftist people think I'm a Republican if even talk about the same issue.

The whole fucking system is built on these cards. It can blow up some day. And then we all have some expedient narrative fed to our tribe that it was the fault of the people in the other side of the political spectrum. — ssu

I don't think I'm disagreeing. But remember not long ago there was a surplus, not a deficit. It's not impossible. The debt isn't even that big a problem, for many reasons. But even if it were, there's two things you can do: cut spending or raise taxes, or both. But then the issue becomes: where? Where do we raise taxes and where do we cut spending? The Republicans are itching to cut social security and medicare and turn them over to private hands -- no surprise there. The Democrats want to "tax the rich," which is on the right track, but then have no problem shelling out a grotesque $778 billion in defense spending. Meanwhile their "proposals" never come to fruition on taxes. Bernie and Warren had wealth tax proposals which were decent and modest, but there's no chance of that. Yellen has been pushing for a 15% minimum global corporate tax -- but that'll most likely go nowhere too.

So if neither party will allow more taxes on the ultra rich and the corporations, and neither are willing to cut what needs to be cut (defense spending), of course there will be a deficit every year and the national debt will continue to climb.

They're all capitalists, through and through. And it's capitalism that is crushing us and will, in all probability, be terminal for us. The Fed plays a large role in all of that, no doubt -- but it's not completely their fault.

The point is, the corporate interest driving government, media and scientific responses is overwhelmingly pro-vaccine. — Isaac

True, yes. They’re not stupid — they know what’s good for the bottom line.

Either way, the idea that the anti-vax movement is the major player here, — Isaac

When 20 or 30 percent — being conservative — refuse vaccination, I’d say that’s become a major player, yeah. Same with the election lie — even the Wall Street Journal and Fox News (and every major corporation) don’t go that far. Yet something like 40% of Americans think Biden isn’t legitimate.

My point wasn’t about the anti-vax movement. It was about the divided, confused, and completely irrational state of affairs we’re living in. Vaccine irrationality, like election irrationality, is but one symptom. I do indeed blame the powerful for this — they’ve created this monster that they can no longer control. As I said before, it’s due to 40 years of policies that have decimated the populace and years of brainwashing/cultivating irrational attitudes.

Murdoch and Fox News, for example, share a great deal of responsibility for this — and for Trump. But does Trump now telling viewers to abandon Fox News somehow negate this? Not at all.

Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace.
— Xtrix

Bullshit. — Isaac

Then goes on to cite the pharmaceutical companies. :lol:

I think you missed the point.

Consider the fact that there are people out there who actually believe breakthrough cases are the real problem.

See above article. Maybe it *is* better to treat them like animals after all.

Remember the old phrase "There's no cure for stupid." Apropos, I think.

People don't want to give up power, or perceived status in society, even if it would make the world a better place. As long as we care more about status than the people around us, we will keep making the same primitive mistakes that lead to many of the world's preventable ills. — Philosophim

An important point. I think it can it's related to greed. I suppose greed is a "will to power," just manifested in this case in the desire for more and more wealth and money. Still, it's a tale as old as history.

In my opinion, the root disease for climate change and political corruption is capitalism and all of the contradictions associated with it. — Albero

Thanks for the response -- I happen to agree with you. If we want add another layer, I say it's a religious problem. Capitalism has become so ingrained in the thinking and decision making of those in power, and in our culture generally to some degree, that it's far more similar to Christianity than anything else.

As to whether to address symptoms first or the disease itself, the answer is both! Simply because symptoms can themselves be a problem and severe enough become the problem. — tim wood

True. I certainly think that's the case with climate change, at this point. We're just out of time -- we cannot reform deeper systemic issues in time to get where we need to be. I hope I'm wrong, but waiting around for that while doing nothing about this crisis is completely irrational.

Capitalism has already been mentioned, and this should be obvious (identifying the problem is a lot easier than solving it). — _db

I don't know if that's obvious or not. Is it? You're the second person to point it out so far -- so that alone is hopeful -- but I'm not sure that immediately springs to mind when discussing nuclear weapons or climate change or the use of technology, etc. Maybe political corruption. But you're right that it's easier to identify the problem than solve it. But my point is that we can't get very far if we don't identify the root of the problem, if for no other reason than to prioritize attacking it.

In addition to this, or maybe beyond this, there is the expansion of technique into every domain of human life. Technique is, after all, what engendered capitalism in the first place (though it is an imperfect technique for the demands of efficiency, since the pursuit of profit is not always compatible with the pursuit of efficiency). When humans become totally dependent on (helpless without) technology and techniques, there will be no real freedom, and therefore no real happiness, and ultimately no need for humans at all. — _db

I'm not sure what you mean by "technique" here. Technology? If so I think that's an important point historically. After all, would there be the capitalism today without the industrial revolution? So perhaps that's the real issue here. But I see technology as dependent on how it's used, and that depends on human beings in power, who make decisions based on beliefs and values.

I think another way to look at it is simply this: greed.

And I think they have for a long time bought corporate debt and were directly involved in helping other entities than banks. — ssu

They did not buy corporate debt prior to March 23rd 2020, so far as I know. This was done via the PMCCF and the SMCCF, both created at that time.

What you're talking about are loan programs. It sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but there's a real difference -- and we can get into it further if you'd like. But my point was that this was one major difference between 2008/9 and 2020. The financial sector was heavily leveraged and corporate debt had skyrocketed prior to the shutdowns, which is why another round of QE didn't work and these newer programs were created.

Here's the Fed statement:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20200323a.htm

And from Brookings:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/fed-response-to-covid19/

All of this has very little to do with inflation, which was the initial subject.

I do admit that thanks to the covid pandemic lockdowns have created supply chain problems, but those really, just as with toilet paper or masks, do get solved. They do get fixed and do go away. As we agree, the financial crisis never went away and the stock market was boosted by monetary policy. And this is why this is far more serious than just supply chain problems or a temporary bout of inflation. — ssu

Well yes, of course. If what you're really arguing is that the Fed has a major impact on the economy, who could disagree? What I'm arguing against is your statement that the Fed's monetary policy (printing more money) is what has caused inflation, when a much simpler explanation exists: the COVID pandemic -- which in turn triggered disruption in consumer spending, supply chain problems, and fiscal policy. The Fed purchasing trillions in treasuries and corporate bonds have little to do with the prices of gas and chicken.

The Fed has nothing to do with the fiscal policy of last year or this year. Nothing.
— Xtrix
Isn't the actor who is the biggest buyer of US government debt a major player here? I think so. The Federal Reserve is already the biggest owner of Treasury debt. Not China. — ssu

That's not true. The biggest owner of treasuries is social security. The Fed owns a great deal.

But again, I don't see the relevance. The Fed does buy treasury bonds, yes. But they always have. Buying corporate debt is different -- but none of this has much to do with inflation we're seeing this year.

Information about Covid-19 will continue to be valuable for people who are interested in being vaccinated and just need more data. But that may be only a small portion of the unvaccinated population now. If disbelief in the importance of vaccination is the primary barrier to reaching the country’s vaccination goals, more information is unlikely to work.

Our past research has also shown that more information often isn’t enough to change behavior. A classic example is doctors who struggle to follow the same medical advice that they give to patients. Despite doctors’ extensive training and access to medical information, as a group, they are barely better than patients at sticking to recommendations for improving their health. This includes vaccinations. Rates of chickenpox vaccination among doctors’ children, for example, are not meaningfully different from the rates among children whose parents are not doctors. While most parents vaccinate their children against chickenpox, you would expect the rates among doctors’ families to be especially high.

What interventions might work? Behavioral science research suggests that one of the best ways to motivate behavior is through incentives, either positive or negative. Incentives work because they do not force people to change their beliefs. A customer might switch cellphone providers not because he believes the new provider is better, but because the new provider is offering a free iPhone to switch (a positive incentive). A teenager might come home before curfew on a Saturday night not because she believes it’s dangerous to be out late, but because she knows her parents will take away her car keys if she stays out past midnight (a negative incentive).

While small positive incentives such as free doughnuts or entries into statewide lottery programs may have motivated some people, those and similar methods don’t seem to motivate people to get vaccinated on a scale large enough to close the vaccination gap.

The incentive that seems to work especially well is the employer vaccine mandate, a negative incentive. “Get vaccinated or get fired” has shown to be an effective message. United Airlines, which mandated the coronavirus vaccination for its employees this past summer, reported in November that 100 percent of their customer-facing employees were vaccinated, and that only about 200 of their 67,000 employees had chosen termination over vaccination. Similar stories have played out among private and public sector employers that enforce mandates, with vaccination rates approaching 100 percent (including at our own hospital).

By now, it’s clear that the public health system does not know how to change people’s beliefs about vaccines. Until we do, America’s leaders should focus on other strategies, especially the ones we already know are effective.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/vaccine-hesitancy-covid-omicron.html

So in other words: we're losing the battle of education, knowledge, facts, information, communication, etc. Corporate media and social media (but I repeat myself) are leading more and more people into conspiracies and bogus beliefs and into silos. That is clear.

What to do about it? Use "incentives." Translation: rewards and punishments. When people behave like animals, treat them as such and that will work. Behaviorism prevails, in this case. Simple principles of classical and operant conditioning will be enormously effective.

There's a part of me that's very leery about all this, even though I think it's justified in this case, based on scientific and medical consensus/direction, but much like the analogy to the teenager coming home for curfew because she's afraid of "negative incentive," that's far from ideal. Best to have a child understand why the rule is in place to begin with, not simply to force compliance with threats. If you're truly unable to make him or her understand the rule, for whatever reason, then you're left with no alternative -- but that doesn't negate the fact that you have a real issue on your hands.

And we certainly have a real issue in the United States. Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace. We're as divided and confused as ever. Not even a pandemic can change that. If 9/11 happened today, I doubt that would change anything either. Perhaps we had the best chance to come together in 2009 -- instead we got the Tea Party and Occupy, and Obama bailing out the banks.

Maybe it's already over, folks.

Anyway -- if "incentives" is the way of the future, it'll lead to even more division and violence. But when half the country's behavior effects the other half and vice versa, something has to be done. This is a tough one -- but in the end I blame the 40 years of the neoliberal assault and the influential people who engineered it. This is what comes from putting greed above everything.

Your argument boils down to, absence of evidence is evidence of absence — TheMadFool

True -- maybe there really is an elephant sitting on your chest. Maybe one day evidence will emerge that shows this to be the case. If this is what you end up concluding, then something has gone terribly wrong. Try identifying where the problem occurs.

Part of it, in my view, is that logic, theory, propositions, abstraction, generalizations, etc., can only take us so far. I see a useful distinction in theory and practice, and it can extend to this example.

In theory, absence of evidence doesn't "prove" something isn't there -- whether God, or the elephant, or the spaghetti monster -- there's just no practical reason to believe it's there, and no reason to believe any evidence will ever show up that will demonstrate that it's there.

There's also the issue of why a claim like this is even being made, which is a more interesting point. 180 made the claim about an elephant. He conjured it up out of thin air to prove a point. Should we waste any time whatsoever wondering about whether or not it's true? Likewise, should we devote any more time about the claims of Semitic peoples that have been handed down to us over millennia? Also: we generally agree about what an elephant is, yet we have almost no idea about God. The word is empty and almost completely meaningless. It persists in its use, however, and many people find it important -- so that fact alone perhaps makes it worth spending time on, but for psychological reasons.

So how long are you going to believe the official "supply chain" argument? — ssu

How long are you going to believe in monetarism?

First, no, not in this way. The alphabet soup of programs they went through wasn't at this level and intensity — ssu

It most certainly was. They went through several rounds of QE, which at that point hadn't been done before. No one even knew what it was. Whatever "alphabet soup" of programs you're talking about, there is a difference: last March the Fed started buying corporate debt as well. That too is unprecedented, but hardly any more shocking than what was done in '09.

AND the money basically went to uphold the banks, which sat on the money like Scrooge McDuck. Banks sitting on money doesn't create inflation. — ssu

Interesting that you're willing to get into the weeds on the 2009 actions, but fail to do so now.

The Fed is still propping up banks and corporations to this day. They're hostage to the banks, and are a backstop for them. And contrary to your implication, inflation was predicted back in 2009 -- and never came. So why now? It's obvious why -- and it's not because of monetary policy. Like you said, that money didn't raise the economy -- it raised markets. If you want to argue that the current housing market boom (which is likely another bubble) is largely because of the Fed, or the stock market, or the bond market -- that's probably right.

The rest is because of the coronavirus and fiscal policy. Spending habits changed for a year, away from services (like travel, haircuts, gyms, restaurants, massages, etc) and towards goods (Pelotins, toilet paper, furniture, kitchenware). The vaccines rolled out a year ago, Biden came into office, the numbers started to come down, vaccination rates were at a good pace, states started opening up again, and there was optimism about the future. That was winter and spring. Consumer habits then changed once again, especially with traveling -- we saw this around June and July. Combine this with the supply chain problems, and companies having to raise pay and incentives for angry, worn out workers (which only means they raise their prices, because God forbid it cuts into their already enormous profits), and there's no surprise some items are increasing in price. Families were also sitting on more money than a couple years ago.

It's gasoline that people mainly care about. When prices for gas go up, as they have, people think that's inflation. So there's widespread panic about it, especially when the media talks up the CPI numbers (which most people have no clue about) and half the country are eager to jump on any news that seems negative because they want Biden to fail (odd that these same people don't talk about how GREAT the economy is, since the stock market is still setting records...). In any case, gasoline prices have nothing to do with monetary policy. That's a supply and demand issue -- there's far more demand, and less supply (which is why Biden was begging OPEC to pump more).

You look at the backup at the ports, particularly in LA, and take the rest into account, and it's fairly obvious: this is a COVID related issue. We went through a major shock with lockdowns in March of 2020. Yes, Wall Street panicked, stocks plunged, and the Fed was there to rescue them yet again. That certainly caused inflation -- it inflated stocks, corporate profits, and CEO compensation. Good for them. But to confuse this with the prices of chicken, bread, and gas is just nonsense.

Now the money is going directly to consumers, which does put the money into circulation. — ssu

The Fed has nothing to do with the fiscal policy of last year or this year. Nothing. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I suspect you don't either. See above.

But of course, if you print so much money, you will get inflation. — ssu

That’s not why we have inflation. We have inflation because of the supply chain. The Fed has been printing money galore since 2009.

Yes, keep enabling denialism. You’re doing great work.

Now if there indeed needs to be made a choice between those two, then the choice should be pretty clear, because without a livable planet you can have no economy. — ChatteringMonkey

But think about all the money we’ll lose in the short term.

The “choice” is a ridiculous one. First, it’s no where close to true. Second, even if it were, is “economic collapse” worse than literal annihilation?

The issues people find puzzling…it’s incredible.

Honestly I have more faith that Elon Musk will come in and save the day and I wish I were joking. — Mr Bee

Nah, He’ll be there with the rest of the congregation of the church of capitalism saying nice words and completely undermining every real effort to change anything.

Fuck Elon Musk.

Forget it. Go back to sleep. You’re right: economic collapse. Thank God you’re here to save the economy. True, without a livable planet there is no economy— but no matter. Carry on.

The problem with climate action is that if the appropriate steps were taken, the result would be a global economic meltdown. — Agent Smith

This stupid statement is like something out of Don’t Look Up.

Really makes me question the point of the Dems winning the Georgia runoffs if what we're gonna get from all this was a bipartisan bill that could've passed anyways. — Mr Bee

I didn't think there was a great chance at the initial bill, but figured it would be watered down and pass. I wasn't expecting nothing whatsoever, honestly. But I'm sure many in the DNC are happy -- they pushed Biden through, and he ended up winning, so now we can have four years of status quo. Still better than Trump, but that's really not saying much. At least Trump energized the left to a degree.

So much for national politics. Time to get back to the grassroots level anyway. We're probably long out of time, in terms of the climate disaster that's already happening and will inevitably become worse, if not destroy the human species altogether, but there's little else we can do at this point.

So it looks like the bill is officially dead. What a shocker.

Recap:

• “Bipartisan” (terrible) infrastructure bill created in senate, held up by progressive caucus until they were sent the “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill, originally $3.5 trillion.
  
• Bill gets stripped down to nearly nothing to appease Manchin and Sinema.
  
• Progressives cave.
  
• Manchin votes for $7 trillion dollar defense bill.
  
• Manchin destroys reconciliation bill, citing the deficit.

As a reminder: Manchin has received the most money — of any Senator, Republican or Democrat — from the fossil fuel industry.