5 ms·

A nice old-fashioned world war should solve it.

mistermann 9y ago
If we keep pretending there's no problem, or hope these problem are going to solve themselves, we're going to end up with civil wars, at least.
- godzillabrennus 9y ago
  America is already engaged in a "cold" civil war between the cities and the rural communities. The cultural and economic future of the nation is being legislated by the current victor. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
  - qubex 9y ago
    ”Cold Civil War” is the best term to describe and surmise the current predicament I've read so far in years of considering these problems. Is it your phrase?
    - louprado 9y ago
      First use I could find is by John Derbyshire June 27, 2013 [1]. This is a powerful phrase that hopefully finds common usage. Perhaps we'd all have less contempt towards opposing views if we are reminded that violence occurs when contempt levels get too high. [1] http://takimag.com/article/the_cold_civil_war_grinds_on_john_derbyshire/print#ixzz4l2lQBlcE http://takimag.com/article/the_cold_civil_war_grinds_on_john...
      - qubex 9y ago
        Thank you. I'm surprised I haven't come across it before. It is certainly memorable enough to stick in my mind... it certainly has now!
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        William Gibson, 2006: http://williamgibsonblog.blogspot.com.au/2006_01_01_archive.html http://williamgibsonblog.blogspot.com.au/2006_01_01_archive.... (Via a friend on Mastodon -- I very much liked your usage of this term.) https://mastodon.social/users/DenubisX/updates/3436121 https://mastodon.social/users/DenubisX/updates/3436121
    - godzillabrennus 9y ago
      Yes, it's a phrase I conjured up and started using to describe the current political situation.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    While the Republican voter base is much more rural than the Democrats I think it'd be pretty naive to say that the interest of the common rural man is currently what's being enacted.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      That should be pretty plainly evident. At the same time, it's the rural and urban electorates being played off one another. That's a long con. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i3lj3/the_urbanrural_divide_an_enduring_complex_vs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i3lj3/the_urb... https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jones_augustus_the_breakdown_of_the_republic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jon...
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > The cultural and economic future of the nation is being legislated by the current victor. So the people that really control things would have you think. In reality, it is being legislated by the same people that have been in control for decades now. Who that might exactly be I do not know.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      It's not that mysterious. Political factions have patron industries and large-scale donors and their voices count way more than anybody else's.
  - empath75 9y ago
    You know, as an economic liberal and someone who makes a really good living in the city, if be thrilled if rural voters voted to tax us and distribute more money to the less well off, but they actually voted to get rid of their own health care so they could give me a tax cut.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - brianwawok 9y ago
      I struggle with this as well. Makes me not want to fight the good fight.
geofft 9y ago
The neat thing about world wars is that they involve a huge amount of government-directed spending of taxpayer funds on things that make very little economic sense, but the merely directing that spending does wonders for the economy and the country's prosperity, assuming you win. Apart from the fact where you're killing people for no reason, it's not very capitalist at all.
- qubex 9y ago
  That's ’just’ Keynesian economics: the government finding an excuse to boost aggregate demand by borrowing money to spend into the local economy. War has the relative advantage of constantly depleting the assets invested in and thus demanding re-investment, whilst the moral clime enhances the population's will to lend money to the state to fund such an endeavour (”Buy war bonds to fund our battleships! Help us defeat the Hun!”) Investment in infrastructure, on the other hand, generates return on investment for the local economy. War efforts often involve lots of infrastructure work too to support the industries that need to build the weapons (ports, railroads and highways to move goods, & cetera).
- emodendroket 9y ago
  They also tend to involve lots of outright destruction of wealth if you're not lucky enough to be on another continent than all the fighting.
dontreact 9y ago
This is a pretty glib comment that I think can be made by someone only if they have forgotten the horrors of war.
- tome 9y ago
  Are you sure you understood the spirit in which that comment was made?
  - dontreact 9y ago
    I guess not? Heres what I took it to mean: I think the comment is suggesting that war and violence is an acceptable and inevitable outcome of the current economic and social climate.
    - bostik 9y ago
      While I disagree with "acceptable", traditionally wars have been the one socially agreeable way of getting rid of excess (male) population. The economic repercussions of increased local manufacturing (you don't outsource weapons manufacturing to your enemies) combined with increased demand for workforce are pretty well understood. Which also kind of explains why right-wingers tend to be disproportionally warmongers. War's good for business, after all.
      - dontreact 9y ago
        Yes the world has been brutal and violent for a long time. Fortunately there has been a trend towards less violence per capita over time. To me suggesting that we should regress in this dimension in order to deal with the problems being generated by the current economic and political system seems completely unacceptable. I think as long as all labor can be automated and we as a society do not try to keep humans alive, power will just keep concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer regardless of how many wars are fought.
  - qubex 9y ago
    I took the comment to mean that whatever the moral considerations thereof, a violent class war will be the ultimate outcome of this current predicament. I would like to believe that moral considerations will prevail and bring the situation to a more satisfying conclusion without bloodshed. To resign oneself to the supposed inevitability of violence is despicable.

If we keep pretending there's no problem, or hope these problem are going to solve themselves, we're going to end up with civil wars, at least.

godzillabrennus 9y ago
America is already engaged in a "cold" civil war between the cities and the rural communities. The cultural and economic future of the nation is being legislated by the current victor. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
- qubex 9y ago
  ”Cold Civil War” is the best term to describe and surmise the current predicament I've read so far in years of considering these problems. Is it your phrase?
  - louprado 9y ago
    First use I could find is by John Derbyshire June 27, 2013 [1]. This is a powerful phrase that hopefully finds common usage. Perhaps we'd all have less contempt towards opposing views if we are reminded that violence occurs when contempt levels get too high. [1] http://takimag.com/article/the_cold_civil_war_grinds_on_john_derbyshire/print#ixzz4l2lQBlcE http://takimag.com/article/the_cold_civil_war_grinds_on_john...
    - qubex 9y ago
      Thank you. I'm surprised I haven't come across it before. It is certainly memorable enough to stick in my mind... it certainly has now!
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      William Gibson, 2006: http://williamgibsonblog.blogspot.com.au/2006_01_01_archive.html http://williamgibsonblog.blogspot.com.au/2006_01_01_archive.... (Via a friend on Mastodon -- I very much liked your usage of this term.) https://mastodon.social/users/DenubisX/updates/3436121 https://mastodon.social/users/DenubisX/updates/3436121
  - godzillabrennus 9y ago
    Yes, it's a phrase I conjured up and started using to describe the current political situation.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  While the Republican voter base is much more rural than the Democrats I think it'd be pretty naive to say that the interest of the common rural man is currently what's being enacted.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    That should be pretty plainly evident. At the same time, it's the rural and urban electorates being played off one another. That's a long con. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i3lj3/the_urbanrural_divide_an_enduring_complex_vs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i3lj3/the_urb... https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jones_augustus_the_breakdown_of_the_republic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jon...
- mistermann 9y ago
  > The cultural and economic future of the nation is being legislated by the current victor. So the people that really control things would have you think. In reality, it is being legislated by the same people that have been in control for decades now. Who that might exactly be I do not know.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    It's not that mysterious. Political factions have patron industries and large-scale donors and their voices count way more than anybody else's.
- empath75 9y ago
  You know, as an economic liberal and someone who makes a really good living in the city, if be thrilled if rural voters voted to tax us and distribute more money to the less well off, but they actually voted to get rid of their own health care so they could give me a tax cut.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    I struggle with this as well. Makes me not want to fight the good fight.

geofft 9y ago

The neat thing about world wars is that they involve a huge amount of government-directed spending of taxpayer funds on things that make very little economic sense, but the merely directing that spending does wonders for the economy and the country's prosperity, assuming you win. Apart from the fact where you're killing people for no reason, it's not very capitalist at all.

qubex 9y ago
That's ’just’ Keynesian economics: the government finding an excuse to boost aggregate demand by borrowing money to spend into the local economy. War has the relative advantage of constantly depleting the assets invested in and thus demanding re-investment, whilst the moral clime enhances the population's will to lend money to the state to fund such an endeavour (”Buy war bonds to fund our battleships! Help us defeat the Hun!”) Investment in infrastructure, on the other hand, generates return on investment for the local economy. War efforts often involve lots of infrastructure work too to support the industries that need to build the weapons (ports, railroads and highways to move goods, & cetera).
emodendroket 9y ago
They also tend to involve lots of outright destruction of wealth if you're not lucky enough to be on another continent than all the fighting.

dontreact 9y ago

This is a pretty glib comment that I think can be made by someone only if they have forgotten the horrors of war.

tome 9y ago
Are you sure you understood the spirit in which that comment was made?
- dontreact 9y ago
  I guess not? Heres what I took it to mean: I think the comment is suggesting that war and violence is an acceptable and inevitable outcome of the current economic and social climate.
  - bostik 9y ago
    While I disagree with "acceptable", traditionally wars have been the one socially agreeable way of getting rid of excess (male) population. The economic repercussions of increased local manufacturing (you don't outsource weapons manufacturing to your enemies) combined with increased demand for workforce are pretty well understood. Which also kind of explains why right-wingers tend to be disproportionally warmongers. War's good for business, after all.
    - dontreact 9y ago
      Yes the world has been brutal and violent for a long time. Fortunately there has been a trend towards less violence per capita over time. To me suggesting that we should regress in this dimension in order to deal with the problems being generated by the current economic and political system seems completely unacceptable. I think as long as all labor can be automated and we as a society do not try to keep humans alive, power will just keep concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer regardless of how many wars are fought.
- qubex 9y ago
  I took the comment to mean that whatever the moral considerations thereof, a violent class war will be the ultimate outcome of this current predicament. I would like to believe that moral considerations will prevail and bring the situation to a more satisfying conclusion without bloodshed. To resign oneself to the supposed inevitability of violence is despicable.