now completely broken - unlike it was in the 70s - and the US is a dying Empire so will do what it takes to prioritize its global reach over what is still seen as short term pain. — Streetlight

Their global reach is intact at the moment. The oil shock is expected to worsen, especially if the Chinese stop acting like they just discovered Covid19.

Capitalists hate inflation. How do you not know that?

Yea that's ridiculous

Nope. It decreases return on investment. Everybody's paying off their mortgages because wages are unusually high right now, and inflation makes that easier.

Nope. It's causing inflation. That's not good.

The article was written in 1992. I was just exercising his ideas with Trump in mind.

I'll get back when I have more time and have digested your comments. Thanks!

Kurth wrote this article in 1992. His view then was that one of the main factors undermining the US's status as a cohesive nation is media enterprises that turned the American society into a multicultural audience.

Thus the world never knows what its going to get from the US. We see the US leading a war of sanctions on Russia to try to force it to stop its invasion of Ukraine, but if Trump had won, the US would be cheering Putin on. Per Kurth, this is a sign of a loss of nationhood which is expressed as no clear foreign policy.

I don't know if you have access to jstor, but there's a good article on there called The Post-Modern State, by James Kurth

I'm no expert, but I've read enough history to know NOS4A2 hasn't. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:up:

:grin:

Talking about the US government and industry, in 2001 there was an anti-trust case against Microsoft which echoed another such case in 1984, which famously broke up the "Bell System.". The fact that nobody today even knows what a Bell System is testifies to the occasionally extremely antagonistic relationship between the US government and American corporations.

In other countries, like Japan, that relationship is totally different, with government doing its utmost to protect and accommodate industry.

The situation in America reflects a bloody labor movement and an astonishingly successful American left. Those days are gone, though.

Today, financial institutions are at the core of the US economy, not manufacturing. The story is all about Wall St.

That's my 10 second phone history. :razz:

Oh good.

Schopenhauer said there's no solution period. I think that's correct.

It's just an intro-post. You'll have to fill in the blanks with your own research.

From United Fruit to Rex Tillerson (read: Exxon) et al, big business is very much a part of the revolving door. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I was just commenting that "big business" usually refers to manufacturing, not finance.

Are you going to evolve into one of those brain dead leftist pit bulls? That would be a shame.

I do believe in something like the rule of law, that all people and institutions should be subject to the same laws, principles, customs, whatever, but that’s just another reason why it bothers me that states can get away with theft, murder, kidnapping, imprisonment, but anyone else would not. — NOS4A2

:lol:

This theory gained a new level of importance in the United States, following the 2008 crisis, when prominent government figures insinuated that previous and future hirings in the financial sphere manipulates the decision-making of eminent government members when it comes to financial matters.[2] — ZzzoneiroCosm

Note that while you referred to "big business" the hypothesis under examination is about financial institutions. "Big business" historically refers to private industry, not finance.

Since the financial sector is unusually prominent now, it doesn't seem odd that talent would go back and forth between government and financial institutions, just as the early to mid 20th century talent usually had military experience, so fostered military-private sector relationships which weren't always kosher.

But states also provide defense for the community, a sense of identity, merchant law, incarceration of criminals, social services, etc.

Why would you boil it down to just exploitation? That's seems pretty skewed.

And what about rule of law? Are you for or against it?

What is the state exactly? Could we have rule of law without one? Do we want rule of law?

From what little I've read, unless they can somehow use the Commerce Clause as a justification, any federal law will be declared a violation of State rights. — Michael

Could be. It'll be a talking point for Democrats until they pass something that works. They'll probably start transport assistance for poor people, free hotel rooms and so on.

Congress will pass a law shortly.

But the Normans were provoked by various Englishmen who shipwrecked on their shore.

You'd be worse off. The French brought you civilization. — Olivier5

Between burning people's crops and cutting everybody's hands off, they brought civilization.

:lol:

Lukashenko says nuclear weapons are a bad idea.

"It is also unacceptable because it might knock our terrestrial ball flying off the orbit to who knows where," he added. "Whether or not Russia is capable of that — is a question you need to ask the Russian leadership."

:chin:

More fetal cancer.

I agree, and I've brought up this issue with many of them. I understand and respect that it's murder from their perspective, and that this is a valid perspective. This seems to be what you are trying to convey, but I'm just adding that it's worthwhile to try to help them understand that other perspectives are also valid. — Relativist

:100: :grin:

Sounds good to me.

Of course, but the establishment clause prohibits laws that force a particular religious view on the rest of us. That's what abortion bans do.

There's more to it, of course, but this aspect is rarely brought up. — Relativist

11% of atheists are pro life. So it's not necessarily a religious view.

No - there's no objectively correct answer. Is a zygote a human being? What establishes that? God implanting a soul? "Human being" is a fuzzy concept. — Relativist

Nevertheless, if a portion of the community is crying "murder," it's your business.

Barrett (remarkable for being someone who spent only a few years practicing law but now sits on the Supreme Court). — Ciceronianus

You're suggesting she isn't qualified (as your eyes glaze over and you fall forward).

So yes: privacy matters here. Abortion as murder can be a privately held idea, and should apply only to the person holding the view. — Bitter Crank

:yikes: It never works that way. Abortion is either murder or it's not. If it is, it's everybody's business.

I agree.

But if their view on this is rooted in their religion, then it shouldn't be the determinant of what is law. — Relativist

We don't screen voters for their justifications. You're a citizen, you get a vote.

Before I accepted the idea that anti-unionism was a prime driver of prohibition, I'd want to read a strong case for that view. But again, the major drive for prohibition came from rural protestants who were not witnessing a whole lot of union organizing. — Bitter Crank

Yes. It was that the connection to the labor movement oiled the tracks for an amendment, not that that was the primary wind behind it.

The list of sins in the churches (temples, mosques, etc.) shouldn't be the basis of secular law. — Bitter Crank

Sure. But if some Americans firmly believe abortion is murder, that matters. Their opinion shouldn't be brushed aside in the name of someone's privacy. No one has a right to privately commit murder.

The 18th Amendment concretized SOME peoples' will to ban liquor — Bitter Crank

Some historian I read said that Prohibition was really about the fact that bars were often the meeting places for organizing labor.

Your statement seems more like a play on words than a serious objection.

Is a fertilized egg, a non-viable fetus, or a near term fetus, a person? Thereby hangs the tale. — Bitter Crank

I would say no. Plenty say it is. When people have a difference of opinion about whether an action is moral, that makes it a public issue.

I've never agreed that abortion is about a woman's right to choose. It's about whether abortion is moral. If you think it is, say so, and elect people who will provide protection through laws.

Defining a fertilized egg or a non-viable / viable fetus as a person seems to be first a religious definition (based on the idea of 'ensoulment') that has been taken up by religious-minded secular legislators. — Bitter Crank

Yes. A lot of Americans are religious. So what?

What I'm enquiring about here is how (if we agree with the process) we might morally justify it. — Isaac

I don't know what you're talking about.

That's what Roe was. Insurance against the possibility that future generations saw fit to deny those rights - not by virtue of them merely disagreeing (that would be opposed to ordinary respect for autonomy), but by virtue of the previous generation having failed to bring them up to be sufficiently moral human beings to have their preferences respected. — Isaac

This is incorrect. Laws and constitutional amendments are the mechanisms for cementing the will of the people.

Roe comes from an era when it was thought that judges should take it upon themselves to make social changes that havent been arrived at democratically. Times have changed.

In a sense, that's the moral ground in which I think anti-democratic, but moral, legislation might stand. — Isaac

Ok. Autocracy usually arises due to crisis. We instinctively know that during a crisis we're better off with a leader who can make quick decisions, whether they're right or wrong.

Democracy doesn't unequivocally equal majority rule. — Baden

I said:

In a democracy, the majority (with temperance provided by various mechanisms) rules. — frank

I think that's about right.

Sure. Do you think that we have responsibility for our effects on the personality and beliefs of others? — Isaac

If you discover that you were born with a genius for manipulating people, I advise that you don't use it at all because if you think you have the wisdom to use it, you are almost certainly wrong. (Although if you find that you've been accidentally using it to calm people down in a healthcare environment, go with it.)

Say, if I, through my God awful parenting, produced an absolute monster, do I just let them loose on society at 18 and wash my hands of them (respect their "Freedom to decide" as you put it)? Or do I have some responsibility to act as some restrainer of their excess? — Isaac

If you're American, you're probably on your own with this. You can contact the police, but they'll probably ignore you. How does it work where you're from?

If I were responsible (evil meddling psychologist that I am) for creating a platoon of ruthless assassins by behavioural programming, Jason Bourne style, do you think I'd have some responsibility for the actions of the resulting unit, and how ought I exercise that responsibility? — Isaac

Could you make this question a little more explicit?