Yes we can !!!

Politics and other such topical creams.
Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
Posts: 55432
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by Wolter »

eumaas wrote:
Wolter wrote:I understand completely. if it's any consolation, the Republicans looked a lot more like Nuremberg than Grant Park did. There is still a sense of joy and spontaneity in the Obamaniacs. The other side is just bloodthirsty and paranoid.
Oh, yeah. When I see Bushies chanting a name, I fear for our safety and liberty. When I see Obamaniacs chanting, I fear for our wisdom. There's a marked difference.
Remember, when I talk of stability, it's in the game theory sense where a system falls into a niche where it balances the competing factors that move it to new places on the left/right & liberarian/authoritarian axes.* And it's also taking minor tinkering into account to keep it alive and kicking past it's due date if left alone. Social Democracy seems to be quite stable as long as massive economic or military crises do not occur - as long as the various plates are kept spinning.
I agree with this. But I wonder if the underlined portion is reliant on a non-socdem context as I've pondered above.
Possibly. Frankly, ALL political systems are eventually transient.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115989
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by Dr. Medulla »

eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:I'm curious about your notion of stability—or at least what you mean by it. Human beings, being adaptable fucks, can make any system stable if there's a critical mass that is satisfied with the system. So it gets down to expectations of what your life should amount to and whether the economic, political, and social systems are delivering it to enough people. So questions of stability are dependent on the expectations of the citizenry not the actual system employed, no?
Stability vis-a-vis other systems. I agree that people can make things work for a time (which is why the USSR lasted as long as it did, although I'll note part of that was the black market economy), but at the same time there are tensions in societies that produce systemic change or even collapse. This is more an economic argument than anything. I'll have to put a disclaimer here that I'm about to make some extreme simplifications here since this isn't a specialist board. OK so as I said, these services need to be paid for. But people behave in relatively predictable ways--if you create disincentives to investment, they're less likely to invest. That in turn means less growth and less overall economic activity which makes it harder to pay for those services and in turn makes the burden of paying for those services harder to bear, and it sort of amplifies from there. Eventually you will end up with rather major pressures to roll back the services and deregulate the market. Like I said, this is just a simple example and just one component of it. The economic sustainability just seems questionable to me since it will tend towards stagnation.
So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by eumaas »

eumaas wrote:from facebook, a republican friend's status:
"[name withheld] concedes that work must now be done to protect America from the highest leaders no matter what the cost."
This is continuing. She replied:
"Gene, all I can say is, you'll see."

So I said:
"That doesn't really answer the question--are you implying violence? Secession? I'm game for secession as I dislike the state anyway, but I would caution against overreaction."

She: "Reactionaries created this country and reactionaries will save this country."

I: "Reactionaries? I would agree that Hamilton and his ilk were, as they were a bunch of mercantilists fond of centralism. But Jefferson was an enlightment radical--very much a classical liberal (read:libertarian), though an agrarian one."

She: "Look up words before you use them, please."

I: "That's a rather insulting tone to take, [name]. Which word do you object to? I don't think you can say that reactionaries *created* this nation--by definition it's untrue since it was a revolution against the established interests (feudalism, mercantilism) in favor of classical liberalism (natural rights, free markets, republican gov't). Now a reactionary relative to the contemporary climate would probably be someone embracing classical liberalism (the march of history and all that), but it's flatly false to state that reactionaries relative to the establishment in the 18th century founded this nation. While your second half of your statement may be correct, the first half is incorrect by definition."
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by eumaas »

Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115989
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by Dr. Medulla »

eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.
But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by eumaas »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.
But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.
The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115989
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by Dr. Medulla »

eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.
But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.
The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?
Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
Posts: 55432
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by Wolter »

eumaas wrote:
eumaas wrote:from facebook, a republican friend's status:
"[name withheld] concedes that work must now be done to protect America from the highest leaders no matter what the cost."
This is continuing. She replied:
"Gene, all I can say is, you'll see."

So I said:
"That doesn't really answer the question--are you implying violence? Secession? I'm game for secession as I dislike the state anyway, but I would caution against overreaction."

She: "Reactionaries created this country and reactionaries will save this country."

I: "Reactionaries? I would agree that Hamilton and his ilk were, as they were a bunch of mercantilists fond of centralism. But Jefferson was an enlightment radical--very much a classical liberal (read:libertarian), though an agrarian one."

She: "Look up words before you use them, please."

I: "That's a rather insulting tone to take, [name]. Which word do you object to? I don't think you can say that reactionaries *created* this nation--by definition it's untrue since it was a revolution against the established interests (feudalism, mercantilism) in favor of classical liberalism (natural rights, free markets, republican gov't). Now a reactionary relative to the contemporary climate would probably be someone embracing classical liberalism (the march of history and all that), but it's flatly false to state that reactionaries relative to the establishment in the 18th century founded this nation. While your second half of your statement may be correct, the first half is incorrect by definition."

I know she's your friend, but that is a massively cunty thing to say.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

tepista
User avatar
Foul-Mouthed Werewolf
Posts: 37871
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 11:25am
Location: Livin on a fault line, Waiting on the big one

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by tepista »

JennyB wrote:
matedog wrote:I'm proud of my home state of Virginia going to Obama.

I'm not so proud of my current state of California passing a proposition banning gay marriage.
I am so upset about that. I really don't get it...who are we to deny gay men the joy of registering for wedding gifts? Seriously though, it's sickening.
I'm pissed and surprised too.
We reach the parts other combos cannot reach
We beach the beachheads other armies cannot beach
We speak the tongues other mouths cannot speak

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by eumaas »

Wolter wrote:
eumaas wrote:
eumaas wrote:from facebook, a republican friend's status:
"[name withheld] concedes that work must now be done to protect America from the highest leaders no matter what the cost."
This is continuing. She replied:
"Gene, all I can say is, you'll see."

So I said:
"That doesn't really answer the question--are you implying violence? Secession? I'm game for secession as I dislike the state anyway, but I would caution against overreaction."

She: "Reactionaries created this country and reactionaries will save this country."

I: "Reactionaries? I would agree that Hamilton and his ilk were, as they were a bunch of mercantilists fond of centralism. But Jefferson was an enlightment radical--very much a classical liberal (read:libertarian), though an agrarian one."

She: "Look up words before you use them, please."

I: "That's a rather insulting tone to take, [name]. Which word do you object to? I don't think you can say that reactionaries *created* this nation--by definition it's untrue since it was a revolution against the established interests (feudalism, mercantilism) in favor of classical liberalism (natural rights, free markets, republican gov't). Now a reactionary relative to the contemporary climate would probably be someone embracing classical liberalism (the march of history and all that), but it's flatly false to state that reactionaries relative to the establishment in the 18th century founded this nation. While your second half of your statement may be correct, the first half is incorrect by definition."

I know she's your friend, but that is a massively cunty thing to say.
Yeah, that was my reaction.

Especially considering a couple hundred years of scholarship are on my side.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by eumaas »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.
But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.
The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?
Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.
I'm not sure an economy is capable of building that kind of surplus.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
Posts: 55432
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by Wolter »

eumaas wrote:
Wolter wrote:
eumaas wrote:
eumaas wrote:from facebook, a republican friend's status:
"[name withheld] concedes that work must now be done to protect America from the highest leaders no matter what the cost."
This is continuing. She replied:
"Gene, all I can say is, you'll see."

So I said:
"That doesn't really answer the question--are you implying violence? Secession? I'm game for secession as I dislike the state anyway, but I would caution against overreaction."

She: "Reactionaries created this country and reactionaries will save this country."

I: "Reactionaries? I would agree that Hamilton and his ilk were, as they were a bunch of mercantilists fond of centralism. But Jefferson was an enlightment radical--very much a classical liberal (read:libertarian), though an agrarian one."

She: "Look up words before you use them, please."

I: "That's a rather insulting tone to take, [name]. Which word do you object to? I don't think you can say that reactionaries *created* this nation--by definition it's untrue since it was a revolution against the established interests (feudalism, mercantilism) in favor of classical liberalism (natural rights, free markets, republican gov't). Now a reactionary relative to the contemporary climate would probably be someone embracing classical liberalism (the march of history and all that), but it's flatly false to state that reactionaries relative to the establishment in the 18th century founded this nation. While your second half of your statement may be correct, the first half is incorrect by definition."

I know she's your friend, but that is a massively cunty thing to say.
Yeah, that was my reaction.

Especially considering a couple hundred years of scholarship are on my side.
Remember that the reactionary elements always try to win by redefining the terms to suit their own asinine agenda.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115989
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by Dr. Medulla »

eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote: You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.
But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.
The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?
Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.
I'm not sure an economy is capable of building that kind of surplus.
If the problem of reduced services is due to periodic downturns in the economy, governments and citizens aren't capable of preparing for such events through savings, thereby allowing services to continue?
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by eumaas »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote: But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.
The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?
Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.
I'm not sure an economy is capable of building that kind of surplus.
If the problem of reduced services is due to periodic downturns in the economy, governments and citizens aren't capable of preparing for such events through savings, thereby allowing services to continue?
As far as citizens' saving, that's disincentivized by high taxation. As far as gov't saving, you run into a problem. Let's say for every $10, the gov't takes $5, and that's exactly sufficient to fund the services. Well, that high a rate of taxation is a disincentive to investment and so growth is going to slow, which means the pot from which the gov't draws its taxes will shrink. So the gov't decides to take an extra $.50 to save. By taking that $.50 per every $10, that's $.50 per $10 less to invest, save, or consume by the taxpayer. That means you're actually disincentivizing even more. You're basically trying to solve the problem of high taxation by taxing even more.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115989
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Yes we can !!!

Post by Dr. Medulla »

eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote: The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?
Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.
I'm not sure an economy is capable of building that kind of surplus.
If the problem of reduced services is due to periodic downturns in the economy, governments and citizens aren't capable of preparing for such events through savings, thereby allowing services to continue?
As far as citizens' saving, that's disincentivized by high taxation. As far as gov't saving, you run into a problem. Let's say for every $10, the gov't takes $5, and that's exactly sufficient to fund the services. Well, that high a rate of taxation is a disincentive to investment and so growth is going to slow, which means the pot from which the gov't draws its taxes will shrink. So the gov't decides to take an extra $.50 to save. By taking that $.50 per every $10, that's $.50 per $10 less to invest, save, or consume by the taxpayer. That means you're actually disincentivizing even more. You're basically trying to solve the problem of high taxation by taxing even more.
I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of economics is rudimentary, but the scenario you describe makes it seem that no state could ever provide any services because any money taken from the citizens weakens investment and, by implication, the economy. That public investments are a black hole. Which seems a lot like the stuff we've grown up with. Your scenario also seems like it doesn't take into account that during boom times ("summer") the govt would take in more thru taxation at the same rate than in, say, spring or fall. If, in fact, more is held in savings for use in the winter, why wouldn't it be possible to lower the tax rate in those times and draw from the savings?
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Post Reply