5 ms·

> 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 s

> 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".
        duxup 7y ago
        Exponential growth isn't risk.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        The consequences of it are, and not understanding the nature of exponential growth also creates risk in itself (in the form of severely underestimating risk).
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    People don't vote on things, they vote on other people. That's the first problem of modern democracy. Second problem: to the extent people vote on politicians over things they promise, they vote based on what politicians say they will do (and not in absolute, but relative to competing politicians), not over what they actually do or have done in the past. Since politicians are not accountable for their promises, and the general population has a really short memory, the main impact of voting is as an indirect signal - politicians hoping for being (re)elected have to say and do the things they hope will win them the next elections. (In other words: the control input to political decision making system isn't what the populace wants, but the prediction of what would make most people vote favorably.) Three: people vote based on what the media they read tells them is important, which usually has zero relation to reality and relative relevance of things. I'm far from believing media sources (including social media) are bought and controlled by politicians - no, it's worse. All sides try to nudge and control the narrative, and not just the government, but also the private sector. No one wins that tug-of-war, but the end result is that modern media is a form of complete DDoS attack on population's cognitive capabilities. It's literally making the society stupid.
    - simonh 7y ago
      Voting for people means you can hold them accountable. They lay out their policies, if you trust the person and like their policies you vote them in. If they under-perform you vote them out. Along with a separation of powers to limit abuses, it works very well. Voting for specific policies directly is often disastrous. Look at the way voter initiatives ring fence high levels of spending while also restricting taxation. Look at how Brexit became such a dumpster fire because a government and an elected parliament was compelled to try to implement a policy the government and a majority of MPs disagreed with. Voting for things not people inevitably creates a breakdown in responsibility, especially for complex policies that could be implemented in many ways and involve difficult trade offs. I’m not against referendums in principle, they can work, but only if they are seeking permission to implement a policy supported by the government that is calling the referendum. In that situation the lines of responsibility are clear, and for an important decision it can make sense to hold a referendum.
- 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"

> 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".
      - duxup 7y ago
        Exponential growth isn't risk.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        The consequences of it are, and not understanding the nature of exponential growth also creates risk in itself (in the form of severely underestimating risk).
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  People don't vote on things, they vote on other people. That's the first problem of modern democracy. Second problem: to the extent people vote on politicians over things they promise, they vote based on what politicians say they will do (and not in absolute, but relative to competing politicians), not over what they actually do or have done in the past. Since politicians are not accountable for their promises, and the general population has a really short memory, the main impact of voting is as an indirect signal - politicians hoping for being (re)elected have to say and do the things they hope will win them the next elections. (In other words: the control input to political decision making system isn't what the populace wants, but the prediction of what would make most people vote favorably.) Three: people vote based on what the media they read tells them is important, which usually has zero relation to reality and relative relevance of things. I'm far from believing media sources (including social media) are bought and controlled by politicians - no, it's worse. All sides try to nudge and control the narrative, and not just the government, but also the private sector. No one wins that tug-of-war, but the end result is that modern media is a form of complete DDoS attack on population's cognitive capabilities. It's literally making the society stupid.
  - simonh 7y ago
    Voting for people means you can hold them accountable. They lay out their policies, if you trust the person and like their policies you vote them in. If they under-perform you vote them out. Along with a separation of powers to limit abuses, it works very well. Voting for specific policies directly is often disastrous. Look at the way voter initiatives ring fence high levels of spending while also restricting taxation. Look at how Brexit became such a dumpster fire because a government and an elected parliament was compelled to try to implement a policy the government and a majority of MPs disagreed with. Voting for things not people inevitably creates a breakdown in responsibility, especially for complex policies that could be implemented in many ways and involve difficult trade offs. I’m not against referendums in principle, they can work, but only if they are seeking permission to implement a policy supported by the government that is calling the referendum. In that situation the lines of responsibility are clear, and for an important decision it can make sense to hold a referendum.
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"