6 ms·

Your post is optimistic to the point I choked on my coffee. Our economy is predicated on consumer spending; we have a whole set of industries built on the back

Your post is optimistic to the point I choked on my coffee. Our economy is predicated on consumer spending; we have a whole set of industries built on the backs of poor financial decision making and being near-broke (payday loans, credit cards, overdraft charge reordering, debt collectors, etc.) all of which pull power away from desperate people and give it to others (now your landlord/phone company/ISP/etc have legal grounds to kick you out, terminate your service, etc.) Never mind the difficulty of making use of a court system stacked against the poor... > I hope voters and politicians recognize... Actually, it appears that voters and politicians have zero interest in improving this situation, seeing as the current administration is making every effort to demoralize and defang the CFPB[0], which was literally created to do some of the things you're interested in. I especially like how Mulvaney is moving everything into "financial education", as if an agency with 500M budget is going to make a dent against the billions spent on marketing related to financial "services". [0] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cfpb-student-loans-20180509-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cfpb-student-loans-201...

ioquatix 8y ago
Modern day slavery. Wow, never did I see it like this before.
master-litty 8y ago
It's so childish putting optimistic people down. Our economy, habits, and mindset can change with a great deal of work and energy. People are becoming more connected than ever before, and with that we can build a new kind of social momentum. Hey, you're right, things suck now, but it doesn't have to be like this.
- jadedhacker 8y ago
  The piece you're missing is that none of this is a mistake, the entire economy is designed to do this. Apathy and hoping it'll get better will if anything make it worse (not that I'm implying that's your position). The only thing that will make it better is demanding that things change. This means mass unionization, strikes, worker owned businesses, protests, leftist politicians like Sanders and Corbyn, and a whole program of fundamental goods provided free at the point of service like healthcare, education, and child care. We have a lot of work ahead of us.
  - alasdair_ 8y ago
    >the entire economy is designed to do this Unless you are a firm believer in the power of the Illuminati, we have as close to the opposite of a planned (and thus designed) economy as one can get in the present day. Just because a behavior or other feature in a complex system is emergent doesn't mean the system was initially designed that way.
    - jadedhacker 8y ago
      I am a firm believer in corporate consolidation, so yes, those smoke filled rooms do exist. However, you can consider this a systemic critique of capitalism which systemically concentrates wealth. The intention doesn't matter if the system is set up to create a particular result.
    - grigjd3 8y ago
      I'm not in line with jadedhacker, but its hard to ignore how often regulatory legislation is written by the industry being regulated.
    - api 8y ago
      I really dislike how absurd conspiracy theories are used to discredit any discussion of networks of power and how those networks operate. There is no vast monolithic conspiracy but there are certainly many smaller ones (lobbyists, front groups, back room deals, etc.) with incentives that align. Alignment of incentives can generate a result that looks a whole lot like the result of a big organized conspiracy. If anything the less organized network of aligned interests is tougher to resist than an "Illuminati." It's more resilient and antifragile. Big vertically integrated power structures are slow and brittle.
    - toofy 8y ago
      > we have as close to the opposite of a planned (and thus designed) economy as one can get in the present day. I understand why this might seem like the most obvious answer, but your analysis seems to not take into account things like revolving door politics, regulatory capture, lobbyists priority access to lawmakers, citizens united, etc... etc... etc... I don’t think most people would suggest that there is a small table surrounded by evil cackling billionaires conspiring to pull every single worldwide string, but rather there is a relatively small number of people who have enough money to buy themselves access to writing regulation and laws which favor their own interests which will often coincidentally align with the other billionaires who can afford this kind of access. We can’t ignore the ways in which issues like this skew influence to a small number of powerful interests.
- ryanx435 8y ago
  This is an even more childish comment. You think you can change how human nature fundamentally works? How naive. People are selfish and greedy. They always have been. They always will be. Any solution to a problem that relies on building "a new kind of social momentum" are ignorant at best and actively harmful at worst.
  - jabgrabdthrow 8y ago
    You sound like you’re trying to be edgy. Are Democracy and Polio Vaccines actively harmful? Parent comment is right.
    - ryanx435 8y ago
      Oh are we listing arbitrary inventions or historical events to prove our points? People are selfish and greedy: Subprime mortgage crisis Enron George Soros shorting the British pound The entire Mongolian expansion and their culture of rape and pillaging * Small time Nazi officers stealing Jewish people's wedding rings * Too big to fail * Literally any employment contract where people are laid less than market value. * Thieves exist. * Murderers exist * Corruption exists * Swindlers exist I guess that acknowledging human nature is edgy now. Well, fuck it. I must be edgy then.
      - ionised 8y ago
        For each of those destructive things you mentioned I could name a positive and contributing thing. Humans aren't all bad or all good. It's a spectrum of traits and behaviours, and they absolutely can be altered and conditioned.
  - smilangalang 8y ago
    You are wrong. In a healthy, high functioning family, values are extremely different than what you describe. The fact that massive amounts of homes are broken, with the children only being raised by one parent, the prevalence of drug abuse, "substance" abuse such as caffeine and sugar, poor diets and habits... Is not human nature, it's a systemic illness. These two things are not the same.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
> Your post is optimistic to the point I choked on my coffee. Don't sneer. Do the hard work to make necessary things happen.
- smilangalang 8y ago
  Statistically and psychologically speaking, his voice reflects the paradigms and perceptions of someone who has resorted to corrupt behavior, i.e. Using other people, relying on people to bail him out of taking responsibility for his actions, lying and skewing or hiding the truth to gain a competitive edge, etc. He could also just be someone who recently forsook his values because that is the nature of corruption, it slowly spreads like a cancer. This will become more and more apparent in the coming years and I do believe it will be at the center of all conflict and political discourse going forward. Nihilistic minds will lead us down a path that depletes the healthy parts of the system(s) upon which such people rely too heavily. And these aforementioned parasitic systems are not good at generating wealth nor are they historically efficient at generating innovation or new, stronger systems. There might not be a revolution, but there will be a subverting downward spiral that will end with a wake up call. One can only hope and try to convince & convert others to put on the brakes long and hard enough for us to develop immunities and fixes.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Actually, it appears that voters and politicians have zero interest in improving this situation, seeing as the current administration is making every effort to demoralize and defang the CFPB The current administration was elected with fewer votes than the leading opponent, so it certainly reflects a subset of voters and the politicians comprising the administration, but hardly is a basis for concluding that voters in general have zero interest in issues simply because the administration evidently does not.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  Although comforting, the having a majority of the votes is a misleading metric in some ways, the electoral college is skewed so that voters in states with lower population have more power so each vote is not equal. This effect carries over to the Senate where a similar outcome with lower population states having more power so one person's vote is more powerful depending upon their geographic location.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Although comforting, the having a majority of the votes is a misleading metric in some ways In some ways, perhaps, but not when the question is whether the actions of the person elected can, based on the election results, be taken as proof that the voters collectively have zero concern for an issue. > the electoral college is skewed so that voters in states with lower population have more power so each vote is not equal. True. > This effect carries over to the Senate No, it's a carryover from the Senate: electoral college representation is identical by state to Congressional representation in both houses combined.
- smilangalang 8y ago
  While I agree with your stance, I don't think using HRC as an example, nor her supporters is an accurate example. She got played trying to play the GOP's own games. Now if you had said Bernie specifically...

ioquatix 8y ago

Modern day slavery. Wow, never did I see it like this before.

master-litty 8y ago

It's so childish putting optimistic people down. Our economy, habits, and mindset can change with a great deal of work and energy. People are becoming more connected than ever before, and with that we can build a new kind of social momentum. Hey, you're right, things suck now, but it doesn't have to be like this.

jadedhacker 8y ago
The piece you're missing is that none of this is a mistake, the entire economy is designed to do this. Apathy and hoping it'll get better will if anything make it worse (not that I'm implying that's your position). The only thing that will make it better is demanding that things change. This means mass unionization, strikes, worker owned businesses, protests, leftist politicians like Sanders and Corbyn, and a whole program of fundamental goods provided free at the point of service like healthcare, education, and child care. We have a lot of work ahead of us.
- alasdair_ 8y ago
  >the entire economy is designed to do this Unless you are a firm believer in the power of the Illuminati, we have as close to the opposite of a planned (and thus designed) economy as one can get in the present day. Just because a behavior or other feature in a complex system is emergent doesn't mean the system was initially designed that way.
  - jadedhacker 8y ago
    I am a firm believer in corporate consolidation, so yes, those smoke filled rooms do exist. However, you can consider this a systemic critique of capitalism which systemically concentrates wealth. The intention doesn't matter if the system is set up to create a particular result.
  - grigjd3 8y ago
    I'm not in line with jadedhacker, but its hard to ignore how often regulatory legislation is written by the industry being regulated.
  - api 8y ago
    I really dislike how absurd conspiracy theories are used to discredit any discussion of networks of power and how those networks operate. There is no vast monolithic conspiracy but there are certainly many smaller ones (lobbyists, front groups, back room deals, etc.) with incentives that align. Alignment of incentives can generate a result that looks a whole lot like the result of a big organized conspiracy. If anything the less organized network of aligned interests is tougher to resist than an "Illuminati." It's more resilient and antifragile. Big vertically integrated power structures are slow and brittle.
  - toofy 8y ago
    > we have as close to the opposite of a planned (and thus designed) economy as one can get in the present day. I understand why this might seem like the most obvious answer, but your analysis seems to not take into account things like revolving door politics, regulatory capture, lobbyists priority access to lawmakers, citizens united, etc... etc... etc... I don’t think most people would suggest that there is a small table surrounded by evil cackling billionaires conspiring to pull every single worldwide string, but rather there is a relatively small number of people who have enough money to buy themselves access to writing regulation and laws which favor their own interests which will often coincidentally align with the other billionaires who can afford this kind of access. We can’t ignore the ways in which issues like this skew influence to a small number of powerful interests.
ryanx435 8y ago
This is an even more childish comment. You think you can change how human nature fundamentally works? How naive. People are selfish and greedy. They always have been. They always will be. Any solution to a problem that relies on building "a new kind of social momentum" are ignorant at best and actively harmful at worst.
- jabgrabdthrow 8y ago
  You sound like you’re trying to be edgy. Are Democracy and Polio Vaccines actively harmful? Parent comment is right.
  - ryanx435 8y ago
    Oh are we listing arbitrary inventions or historical events to prove our points? People are selfish and greedy: Subprime mortgage crisis Enron George Soros shorting the British pound The entire Mongolian expansion and their culture of rape and pillaging * Small time Nazi officers stealing Jewish people's wedding rings * Too big to fail * Literally any employment contract where people are laid less than market value. * Thieves exist. * Murderers exist * Corruption exists * Swindlers exist I guess that acknowledging human nature is edgy now. Well, fuck it. I must be edgy then.
    - ionised 8y ago
      For each of those destructive things you mentioned I could name a positive and contributing thing. Humans aren't all bad or all good. It's a spectrum of traits and behaviours, and they absolutely can be altered and conditioned.
- smilangalang 8y ago
  You are wrong. In a healthy, high functioning family, values are extremely different than what you describe. The fact that massive amounts of homes are broken, with the children only being raised by one parent, the prevalence of drug abuse, "substance" abuse such as caffeine and sugar, poor diets and habits... Is not human nature, it's a systemic illness. These two things are not the same.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

> Your post is optimistic to the point I choked on my coffee. Don't sneer. Do the hard work to make necessary things happen.

smilangalang 8y ago
Statistically and psychologically speaking, his voice reflects the paradigms and perceptions of someone who has resorted to corrupt behavior, i.e. Using other people, relying on people to bail him out of taking responsibility for his actions, lying and skewing or hiding the truth to gain a competitive edge, etc. He could also just be someone who recently forsook his values because that is the nature of corruption, it slowly spreads like a cancer. This will become more and more apparent in the coming years and I do believe it will be at the center of all conflict and political discourse going forward. Nihilistic minds will lead us down a path that depletes the healthy parts of the system(s) upon which such people rely too heavily. And these aforementioned parasitic systems are not good at generating wealth nor are they historically efficient at generating innovation or new, stronger systems. There might not be a revolution, but there will be a subverting downward spiral that will end with a wake up call. One can only hope and try to convince & convert others to put on the brakes long and hard enough for us to develop immunities and fixes.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Actually, it appears that voters and politicians have zero interest in improving this situation, seeing as the current administration is making every effort to demoralize and defang the CFPB The current administration was elected with fewer votes than the leading opponent, so it certainly reflects a subset of voters and the politicians comprising the administration, but hardly is a basis for concluding that voters in general have zero interest in issues simply because the administration evidently does not.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stevenwoo 8y ago
Although comforting, the having a majority of the votes is a misleading metric in some ways, the electoral college is skewed so that voters in states with lower population have more power so each vote is not equal. This effect carries over to the Senate where a similar outcome with lower population states having more power so one person's vote is more powerful depending upon their geographic location.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Although comforting, the having a majority of the votes is a misleading metric in some ways In some ways, perhaps, but not when the question is whether the actions of the person elected can, based on the election results, be taken as proof that the voters collectively have zero concern for an issue. > the electoral college is skewed so that voters in states with lower population have more power so each vote is not equal. True. > This effect carries over to the Senate No, it's a carryover from the Senate: electoral college representation is identical by state to Congressional representation in both houses combined.
smilangalang 8y ago
While I agree with your stance, I don't think using HRC as an example, nor her supporters is an accurate example. She got played trying to play the GOP's own games. Now if you had said Bernie specifically...