11 ms·

That wouldn't line the pockets of the oligarchs and the good ol boy network, because it would require the money to actually go to resources and not just overblo

That wouldn't line the pockets of the oligarchs and the good ol boy network, because it would require the money to actually go to resources and not just overblown accounting entries to cover the pocketbook lining in the first place. The DC elite say fluffy words in public but in private are almost to a person "fuck you I got mine" people. They take oaths but don't mean them. It's the sad truth that greed is the largest part of it, which enables the oligarchs to buy the politicians in the first place. Then if some rare person does resist, there are a whole slew of tools to use against them to force compliance, usually in the realm of blackmail (this is what Epstein was). These tools grow even more powerful as the surveillance engine is expanded (and the truism to remember is that surveillance is about control, not security). lookup Thomas Drake and William Binney to find out what happens to people on the inside who actually care about security and not control. Top down compromise of a centralized system makes the system increasingly trivial to control as the compromise progresses.

easytiger 7y ago
> That wouldn't line the pockets of the oligarchs and the good ol boy network Step back for a minute and think about what you are writing and how you came to such a childish view of the world
- bitcharmer 7y ago
  I'd say his viewpoint is quite realistic and based on common knowledge. It's comments like yours that are childish. If you really believe the structure of US expenses isn't heavily impacted by interests of a few rich, powerful men then I'd call your view of the world very naive.
  - duxup 7y ago
    People don't vote for flood protection. They do like military spending. I think sometimes folks wrap up the political will of the people in "oligarchy" simply because they don't like what those folks want or value.
    - Hokusai 7y ago
      The public if largely mislead on the risk of epidemics, flooding, etc. Democracy needs education to run smoothly. There is many studies that show that the government aligns strongly with big money. Just look at the state of health care as an example.
      - duxup 7y ago
        What are the risks of epidemics that people don't understand? I don't doubt money influences things, but also I don't buy into what seems like an all or nothing theory here that the only driver is money or some vague "money". In an capitalist society money will be... everywhere in most every market. It's awfully easy to point that out.
        Hokusai 7y ago
        > I don't buy into what seems like an all or nothing theory here that the only driver is money or some vague "money". I completely agree with that. Right now the system is less than ideal. But, there is many people willing to fight for a better world. And cynicism is only going to make things worse. Many wrong decision are taken in name of profits. But that can be changed, our well being, our planet are at stake. We have time and will to make things better. I just want to point out that we need to work for it. It will not come for free.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > What are the risks of epidemics that people don't understand? How exponential growth works, for one. Two, its implications on JIT supply chains modern society operates on. In all honesty, money flow is the most powerful force on this planet. On the face of it, this looks like a pretty trite observation, but it isn't. What it means is that if you study the feedback loops and incentive structures, look at the market as a dynamic system, you'll see where things are heading - and that picture is very bleak. For instance, you can be damn sure that no matter how badly this epidemic goes, the next one will be handled just as badly. All the problems: lack of tests, disappearing protective equipment, fragile supply chains - are a direct and predictable consequence of market pressures, which chip away all safety buffers, piece by piece. You can't fix this without reducing or removing the influence of market pressures in many points across our society - which is synonymous with the trite saying, "we need to stop X from being driven by money".
  - easytiger 7y ago
    I'd say you are letting preformed politically designed black and white thinking colour your holistic view of how the world actually works.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  It isn't childish. It's the history of the US. From the very beginning to today. But that's the history of most nations around the world. You might also want to check out "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler. Then you might want to check out why the oligarchs created the US in the first place. Had nothing to do with freedom or liberty. It was about land and wealth.
  - duxup 7y ago
    "Had nothing to do with freedom or liberty." I have trouble with such a sweeping statement considering the volume of freedoms available and successfully fought for and gained in the US.
    - dntbnmpls 7y ago
      > I have trouble with such a sweeping statement considering the volume of freedoms available and successfully fought for and gained in the US. You have trouble because you've been brainwashed by endless propaganda. I also used to be troubled as well. Also, my point was that those freedoms weren't why the founders fought for independence. The real reason was land/wealth. The reason for the discontent wasn't "lack of freedom", it was britain forbidding western expansion of the colonies. We wanted land, the british wanted good trade relations with the native americans who supplied them with valuable fur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 The american colonists were "proud englishmen" enjoying the freedom/liberties of all englishmen for nearly 150 years before the independence war? So why the sudden shift in sentiment? Because of wealth. "Freedom, liberty, etc" are just war propaganda. Just like invading iraq to bring "freedom and democracy" to the iraqis.
      - easytiger 7y ago
        uh oh
      - duxup 7y ago
        The scale of freedoms alone would seem to clearly indicate freedom had plenty to do with the foundation and development. You don't get those freedoms in an oligarchy as you describe it.
- iso1631 7y ago
  I assume you're referring to his lack of apostrophe in "good ol boy"
jriley 7y ago
For anyone interested, the CBO published an excellent primer on military force structure here: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51535 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51535 I think it informs ideas about what branches, soldiers, civilians, and contractors do. Once you track where the money goes there are practical ideas to reduce defense spending, as well as dispassionate pros/cons of what’s been tried in the past.
paganel 7y ago
> It's the sad truth that greed is the largest part of it, which enables the oligarchs Slightly related, and for anyone that might accuse the OP of using the term "oligarch" as too modern or too politically-motivated, I highly suggest Robert Michels's "Political Parties", a book written more than 100 years ago and whose subtitle says it all: "A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy". I've just finished reading it (it had been on my to-read list for a couple of years now) and it's fascinating how prescient the writing in there is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Parties
- arethuza 7y ago
  Also worth noting that the political structures in 1984 are described in the book as "Oligarchical Collectivism" - not being in the US I tend to associated the term "oligarch" with Russia.
bsanr2 7y ago
At the top end. However, the electorate that enables it all is frequently xenophobic and racist, and combined with the lie of rugged individualism, the tack most Americans take is one of "every man for himself, except when fighting the Reds."

easytiger 7y ago

> That wouldn't line the pockets of the oligarchs and the good ol boy network Step back for a minute and think about what you are writing and how you came to such a childish view of the world

bitcharmer 7y ago
I'd say his viewpoint is quite realistic and based on common knowledge. It's comments like yours that are childish. If you really believe the structure of US expenses isn't heavily impacted by interests of a few rich, powerful men then I'd call your view of the world very naive.
- duxup 7y ago
  People don't vote for flood protection. They do like military spending. I think sometimes folks wrap up the political will of the people in "oligarchy" simply because they don't like what those folks want or value.
  - Hokusai 7y ago
    The public if largely mislead on the risk of epidemics, flooding, etc. Democracy needs education to run smoothly. There is many studies that show that the government aligns strongly with big money. Just look at the state of health care as an example.
    - duxup 7y ago
      What are the risks of epidemics that people don't understand? I don't doubt money influences things, but also I don't buy into what seems like an all or nothing theory here that the only driver is money or some vague "money". In an capitalist society money will be... everywhere in most every market. It's awfully easy to point that out.
      - Hokusai 7y ago
        > I don't buy into what seems like an all or nothing theory here that the only driver is money or some vague "money". I completely agree with that. Right now the system is less than ideal. But, there is many people willing to fight for a better world. And cynicism is only going to make things worse. Many wrong decision are taken in name of profits. But that can be changed, our well being, our planet are at stake. We have time and will to make things better. I just want to point out that we need to work for it. It will not come for free.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > What are the risks of epidemics that people don't understand? How exponential growth works, for one. Two, its implications on JIT supply chains modern society operates on. In all honesty, money flow is the most powerful force on this planet. On the face of it, this looks like a pretty trite observation, but it isn't. What it means is that if you study the feedback loops and incentive structures, look at the market as a dynamic system, you'll see where things are heading - and that picture is very bleak. For instance, you can be damn sure that no matter how badly this epidemic goes, the next one will be handled just as badly. All the problems: lack of tests, disappearing protective equipment, fragile supply chains - are a direct and predictable consequence of market pressures, which chip away all safety buffers, piece by piece. You can't fix this without reducing or removing the influence of market pressures in many points across our society - which is synonymous with the trite saying, "we need to stop X from being driven by money".
- easytiger 7y ago
  I'd say you are letting preformed politically designed black and white thinking colour your holistic view of how the world actually works.
dntbnmpls 7y ago
It isn't childish. It's the history of the US. From the very beginning to today. But that's the history of most nations around the world. You might also want to check out "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler. Then you might want to check out why the oligarchs created the US in the first place. Had nothing to do with freedom or liberty. It was about land and wealth.
- duxup 7y ago
  "Had nothing to do with freedom or liberty." I have trouble with such a sweeping statement considering the volume of freedoms available and successfully fought for and gained in the US.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > I have trouble with such a sweeping statement considering the volume of freedoms available and successfully fought for and gained in the US. You have trouble because you've been brainwashed by endless propaganda. I also used to be troubled as well. Also, my point was that those freedoms weren't why the founders fought for independence. The real reason was land/wealth. The reason for the discontent wasn't "lack of freedom", it was britain forbidding western expansion of the colonies. We wanted land, the british wanted good trade relations with the native americans who supplied them with valuable fur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 The american colonists were "proud englishmen" enjoying the freedom/liberties of all englishmen for nearly 150 years before the independence war? So why the sudden shift in sentiment? Because of wealth. "Freedom, liberty, etc" are just war propaganda. Just like invading iraq to bring "freedom and democracy" to the iraqis.
    - easytiger 7y ago
      uh oh
    - duxup 7y ago
      The scale of freedoms alone would seem to clearly indicate freedom had plenty to do with the foundation and development. You don't get those freedoms in an oligarchy as you describe it.
iso1631 7y ago
I assume you're referring to his lack of apostrophe in "good ol boy"

jriley 7y ago

For anyone interested, the CBO published an excellent primer on military force structure here: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51535 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51535 I think it informs ideas about what branches, soldiers, civilians, and contractors do. Once you track where the money goes there are practical ideas to reduce defense spending, as well as dispassionate pros/cons of what’s been tried in the past.

paganel 7y ago

> It's the sad truth that greed is the largest part of it, which enables the oligarchs Slightly related, and for anyone that might accuse the OP of using the term "oligarch" as too modern or too politically-motivated, I highly suggest Robert Michels's "Political Parties", a book written more than 100 years ago and whose subtitle says it all: "A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy". I've just finished reading it (it had been on my to-read list for a couple of years now) and it's fascinating how prescient the writing in there is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Parties

arethuza 7y ago
Also worth noting that the political structures in 1984 are described in the book as "Oligarchical Collectivism" - not being in the US I tend to associated the term "oligarch" with Russia.

bsanr2 7y ago

At the top end. However, the electorate that enables it all is frequently xenophobic and racist, and combined with the lie of rugged individualism, the tack most Americans take is one of "every man for himself, except when fighting the Reds."