7 ms·

> "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us" disease that we scoffed at in the Soviet Union That was after the arms race that Kennedy started to starve t

> "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us" disease that we scoffed at in the Soviet Union That was after the arms race that Kennedy started to starve the USSR out of GDP succeeded, when the USSR was allocating all its GDP to defense instead of consumer industries. Which immediately stifled the extremely impactful consumer industry that the USSR had from 1950s to late 1960s. In that period, Kennedy admn. was quite concerned about the progress of the USSR, circulating internal memos saying how the USSR was able to raise the life standards of its people from desperation to 2nd world standards within the same generation, and at that rate other countries could start copying their development model. Ie, socialism. If this was not countered, the global economic control of the US that it gained in post-Ww2 environment would fell down like dominoes as nation after nation chose socialism and allied with the USSR. This was later called 'the Domino theory'. To prevent it, it was decided to 'make examples of' the countries that tried such 'independent development' (that's what they call socialism in their internal memos). That's where the Vietnam War originated from. Also all the other things including the blockade on Cuba etc. What relevance this has to the topic at hand is that, if the employees feel that they are actually receiving something out of the work they do and their lives are getting bettered in ANY way, they work. If there is no improvement regardless of how much they work, they just dont care anymore. That's the current situation in the US - any wage raise is immediately sucked out by the privatized critical services ranging from healthcare to food, from rent to education. Its just not worth putting in more effort anymore because the more effort you put into making money, the more the market sucks out of your wallet.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> That was after the arms race that Kennedy started The nuclear arms race started immediately after WWII (or possibly during it), the space race (and associated missile race) started in the 1950s. The idea that Kennedy started “the arms race” is…ahistorical.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > The nuclear arms race started immediately after WWII (or possibly during it), the space race (and associated missile race) started in the 1950s. Those weren't races. The decision to start an arms race and space race to starve the USSR of GDP is an explicitly laid out plan in Kennedy admn.'s internal memos.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Perhaps you could square your claim of Kennedy starting a space race with Sputnik 1 being launched (with an intentional radio transmitter) 37 months before Kennedy was even elected?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Those weren’t races. The nuclear arms race, space race, and missile race (the second being intimately connected to the third, and in a way its public face, at least initially) were, in fact, races (and components of the broader arms race) and they, in fact, started before Kennedy was in office (the space and missile races, under Eisenhower.) That Kennedy capitalized on that reality, and built a strategy beyond the most obvious superficial goal of those races, is clear, but to say that he “started” the Cold War arms race is silly and ahistorical.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      > The nuclear arms race, space race, and missile race (the second being intimately connected to the third, and in a way its public face, at least initially) were, in fact, races That's your interpretation. And possibly a likely noticeable segment of the public. The Kennedy administration's race is an actual, specific race with a specific plan. It cannot be 'interpreted away' like that. It was a specific decision taken with specific goals in mind. And those goals were not just 'reaching space' or 'have more nuclear bombs' like the others. I recommend watching some relevant Chomsky lectures on the matter. He gives excruciating details of the affair.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > That’s your interpretation. It’s a well-documented fact. > The Kennedy administration’s race is an actual, specific race with a specific plan. The Kennedy strategy only makes sense as an a strategy within the well-documented arms race that was already occurring. > It was a specific decision taken with specific goals in mind. An arms race is not defined by the existence of a strategy of one side, it is an escalating cycle of response between two (or more) sides. The Kennedy strategy might help explain why the superpowers didn’t break out of the race sooner (though, really, arms races continuing until either one or both sides reach economic exhaustion or a geopolitical realignment through either war between them or intervention of a third power renders the race moot is fairly normal, so it’s plausible that the adoption of an obvious strategy by the more economically powerful power given an existing arms race did nothing.) > I recommend watching some relevant Chomsky lectures on the matter. There are things Chomsky might be able to convince me of, but effects preceding their causes isn’t among them.
ok_dad 4y ago
It’s funny, 15 years ago I made 30 percent of what I make today and I could afford a home in the same area I’m in today, but today I would need to make about 1.5x more to afford a home here. Capitalism isn’t “free markets”, it’s “the power goes to the people with capital” and that’s only the top one percent of one percent, for the most part.
- Msw242 4y ago
  Ironically the top 1% don't have enough votes to block relaxed zoning, which would enable developers to bring more supply to your market
  - coliveira 4y ago
    Ironically, the top 1% can buy votes, in one way or another, to do pretty much anything they want.
    - therealdrag0 4y ago
      Except be elected. See Bloomberg and Jeb bush etc.
      - coliveira 4y ago
        You forget that Bloomberg's and Jeb's opponents were also supported by big capital. Big capital wins no matter who's elected.
    - Msw242 4y ago
      You're thinking about this policy area incorrectly The 1% win no matter how we design the housing market. They don't need to thumb the scale
    - creativenolo 4y ago
      And kill off will or options.
    - robocat 4y ago
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Um, no. The Vietnam War absolutely did not start because South Vietnam chose socialism, nor even because North Vietnam did. It started because North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. Your last paragraph, I fear, is accurate.
- coliveira 4y ago
  Before this situation started there was no South or North Vietnam, just one country. To say they invaded their own country is nonsense. The US invaded Vietnam, that is a better way to put it.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    It was one country. They it was a country controlled by China for a thousand years. They it was one country. Then it was a country controlled by France. Then it was a country controlled by Japan. Then the Japanese lost WWII, and France re-took control of the south, and communist revolutionaries took control of the north. And then it was two countries, not one. And if you're going to say that it was just one country, why do you say that it was North Vietnam that was that one country? Why not South Vietnam? (And if you're going to say that they were both that one country, yeah, come live in reality for a while, it's not that bad here. They were two separate countries for thirty years, in the same way that North and South Korea are two separate countries, and in the way that Russia and Ukraine are two separate countries.) And as for calling it an invasion... there was sure a lot of shooting for it to have been a political convention.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> That was after the arms race that Kennedy started The nuclear arms race started immediately after WWII (or possibly during it), the space race (and associated missile race) started in the 1950s. The idea that Kennedy started “the arms race” is…ahistorical.

unity1001 4y ago
> The nuclear arms race started immediately after WWII (or possibly during it), the space race (and associated missile race) started in the 1950s. Those weren't races. The decision to start an arms race and space race to starve the USSR of GDP is an explicitly laid out plan in Kennedy admn.'s internal memos.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Perhaps you could square your claim of Kennedy starting a space race with Sputnik 1 being launched (with an intentional radio transmitter) 37 months before Kennedy was even elected?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Those weren’t races. The nuclear arms race, space race, and missile race (the second being intimately connected to the third, and in a way its public face, at least initially) were, in fact, races (and components of the broader arms race) and they, in fact, started before Kennedy was in office (the space and missile races, under Eisenhower.) That Kennedy capitalized on that reality, and built a strategy beyond the most obvious superficial goal of those races, is clear, but to say that he “started” the Cold War arms race is silly and ahistorical.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > The nuclear arms race, space race, and missile race (the second being intimately connected to the third, and in a way its public face, at least initially) were, in fact, races That's your interpretation. And possibly a likely noticeable segment of the public. The Kennedy administration's race is an actual, specific race with a specific plan. It cannot be 'interpreted away' like that. It was a specific decision taken with specific goals in mind. And those goals were not just 'reaching space' or 'have more nuclear bombs' like the others. I recommend watching some relevant Chomsky lectures on the matter. He gives excruciating details of the affair.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > That’s your interpretation. It’s a well-documented fact. > The Kennedy administration’s race is an actual, specific race with a specific plan. The Kennedy strategy only makes sense as an a strategy within the well-documented arms race that was already occurring. > It was a specific decision taken with specific goals in mind. An arms race is not defined by the existence of a strategy of one side, it is an escalating cycle of response between two (or more) sides. The Kennedy strategy might help explain why the superpowers didn’t break out of the race sooner (though, really, arms races continuing until either one or both sides reach economic exhaustion or a geopolitical realignment through either war between them or intervention of a third power renders the race moot is fairly normal, so it’s plausible that the adoption of an obvious strategy by the more economically powerful power given an existing arms race did nothing.) > I recommend watching some relevant Chomsky lectures on the matter. There are things Chomsky might be able to convince me of, but effects preceding their causes isn’t among them.

ok_dad 4y ago

It’s funny, 15 years ago I made 30 percent of what I make today and I could afford a home in the same area I’m in today, but today I would need to make about 1.5x more to afford a home here. Capitalism isn’t “free markets”, it’s “the power goes to the people with capital” and that’s only the top one percent of one percent, for the most part.

Msw242 4y ago
Ironically the top 1% don't have enough votes to block relaxed zoning, which would enable developers to bring more supply to your market
- coliveira 4y ago
  Ironically, the top 1% can buy votes, in one way or another, to do pretty much anything they want.
  - therealdrag0 4y ago
    Except be elected. See Bloomberg and Jeb bush etc.
    - coliveira 4y ago
      You forget that Bloomberg's and Jeb's opponents were also supported by big capital. Big capital wins no matter who's elected.
  - Msw242 4y ago
    You're thinking about this policy area incorrectly The 1% win no matter how we design the housing market. They don't need to thumb the scale
  - creativenolo 4y ago
    And kill off will or options.
  - robocat 4y ago

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Um, no. The Vietnam War absolutely did not start because South Vietnam chose socialism, nor even because North Vietnam did. It started because North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. Your last paragraph, I fear, is accurate.

coliveira 4y ago
Before this situation started there was no South or North Vietnam, just one country. To say they invaded their own country is nonsense. The US invaded Vietnam, that is a better way to put it.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  It was one country. They it was a country controlled by China for a thousand years. They it was one country. Then it was a country controlled by France. Then it was a country controlled by Japan. Then the Japanese lost WWII, and France re-took control of the south, and communist revolutionaries took control of the north. And then it was two countries, not one. And if you're going to say that it was just one country, why do you say that it was North Vietnam that was that one country? Why not South Vietnam? (And if you're going to say that they were both that one country, yeah, come live in reality for a while, it's not that bad here. They were two separate countries for thirty years, in the same way that North and South Korea are two separate countries, and in the way that Russia and Ukraine are two separate countries.) And as for calling it an invasion... there was sure a lot of shooting for it to have been a political convention.