11 ms·

>> Honestly it blows my mind they were able to give control of one of the most important industries in the world over to a foreign country like that. The engin

>> Honestly it blows my mind they were able to give control of one of the most important industries in the world over to a foreign country like that. The engines of capitalism only look 1 quarter ahead. And the politicians who support them only look up to the next election. Unless you are majority or largely controlled by your founders, who care about building a good legacy.

shiroiushi 3y ago
Exactly. It's why authoritarian and/or single-party nations have so much more potential to succeed. It's why China did so well for a while. However, in practice, as we've seen with China and others, authoritarianism only works well when the people at the top are really smart and don't have some major character flaws (i.e., the "benevolent dictator"). Eventually, you get a dictator who's a narcissist or moron or fruitcake and it all falls apart. In that case, the best case is that the inner circle will murder him in his bathtub and select a better leader before he ruins everything.
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  Seems to have worked for Russia.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    It has? Russia has a dictator now who's obviously some kind of narcissist, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. His hold on power is tenuous at best, and there's a good chance he'll be deposed before long.
- democracy 3y ago
  You cannot have a dictator who is not a "narcissist or moron or fruitcake" - this is not how human mind works.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    Yes, you certainly can. It's happened many times in history, thanks to hereditary rule (i.e., they inherited these positions, they didn't actively seek them). Queen Elizabeth I of England reigned for 40 years and is considered by historians to be a very good ruler. Marcus Aurelius of Rome was also considered very good. The problem wasn't these rulers, it was what happened after they got old and died and their shitty kids replaced them.
- rebolek 3y ago
  Benevolent dictator is still just a dictator. As he grows older, he cares more about staying in power than following current trends. China wanted to prevent this with their 10 year rule for the general secretary but Xi changfed that and that was his biggest mistake. Democracy's weakness (politicians focusing just on next election cycle) is also its biggest strength. It allows change and adaptation.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    No, a benevolent dictator is the best form of rule. If he cares more about staying in power than anything else, then he's not benevolent. There have been many historical examples of benevolent dictators. I can't think of any in modern history. Xi certainly isn't, and never was. Democracy can avoid the problem of dictatorial systems by allowing the people the ability to get rid of bad rulers, at the expense of usually getting crappy rulers who only focus on the next election cycle, and frequently getting sociopathic narcissists in power.
nebula8804 3y ago
Sounds like there is a market opportunity for long term disrupters. We are seeing it on the high end (SpaceX, Tesla) and on the low end a bit (Origin USA). Maybe if you can examine each industry infected by MBAs and see which ones have had enough quality fade caused by their rot to maybe disrupt?
crq-yml 3y ago
Market investment is ultimately determined by plausible narrative, and by the national narratives at the broadest level. That is, if your industry is tuned in to the investment climate, the things being pursued match the things that people are saying "will make the country great", and are backed up by legislation and financing deals. In the previous era, the US was focused on a deindustrializing narrative: the things that made America great were "clean, high-tech" industry, high graduation rates and four-year degrees, and an outsourced empire that brought sprawling supply chains together "just in time". The new model has brought back the industry, so it needs an emphasis on concrete job skills, versus academic credentialing. It's in-sourced so the supply chain has started in on a radical shift. It emphasizes new energy sources with few foreign dependencies, moving the geopolitical stance towards isolation. The approach to the national balance sheet also has to change, but precisely how lacks for consensus. Like with the previous shifts there were some reasons to take the narrative in a certain direction: late 60's America had many environmental concerns, and fell into an energy crunch in the next decade. "Smart bombing" the Middle East to secure oil supplies brought together the national industries towards a common goal, and the money supply got a reset early on with the end of Bretton-Woods, that helped propel the Boomer generation towards homes-and-families participation within the system. Today we're still putting together the pieces of that narrative, but it's central to the political climate: the old two-party system is focused on exhausted narratives that don't actually excite ordinary people to vote. Therefore the candidates are rushing to put together platforms that rewrite the script and mobilize new demographics.
brvsft 3y ago
> The engines of capitalism only look 1 quarter ahead. As opposed to what, something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign?

shiroiushi 3y ago

Exactly. It's why authoritarian and/or single-party nations have so much more potential to succeed. It's why China did so well for a while. However, in practice, as we've seen with China and others, authoritarianism only works well when the people at the top are really smart and don't have some major character flaws (i.e., the "benevolent dictator"). Eventually, you get a dictator who's a narcissist or moron or fruitcake and it all falls apart. In that case, the best case is that the inner circle will murder him in his bathtub and select a better leader before he ruins everything.

anonuser123456 3y ago
Seems to have worked for Russia.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  It has? Russia has a dictator now who's obviously some kind of narcissist, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. His hold on power is tenuous at best, and there's a good chance he'll be deposed before long.
democracy 3y ago
You cannot have a dictator who is not a "narcissist or moron or fruitcake" - this is not how human mind works.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  Yes, you certainly can. It's happened many times in history, thanks to hereditary rule (i.e., they inherited these positions, they didn't actively seek them). Queen Elizabeth I of England reigned for 40 years and is considered by historians to be a very good ruler. Marcus Aurelius of Rome was also considered very good. The problem wasn't these rulers, it was what happened after they got old and died and their shitty kids replaced them.
rebolek 3y ago
Benevolent dictator is still just a dictator. As he grows older, he cares more about staying in power than following current trends. China wanted to prevent this with their 10 year rule for the general secretary but Xi changfed that and that was his biggest mistake. Democracy's weakness (politicians focusing just on next election cycle) is also its biggest strength. It allows change and adaptation.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  No, a benevolent dictator is the best form of rule. If he cares more about staying in power than anything else, then he's not benevolent. There have been many historical examples of benevolent dictators. I can't think of any in modern history. Xi certainly isn't, and never was. Democracy can avoid the problem of dictatorial systems by allowing the people the ability to get rid of bad rulers, at the expense of usually getting crappy rulers who only focus on the next election cycle, and frequently getting sociopathic narcissists in power.

nebula8804 3y ago

Sounds like there is a market opportunity for long term disrupters. We are seeing it on the high end (SpaceX, Tesla) and on the low end a bit (Origin USA). Maybe if you can examine each industry infected by MBAs and see which ones have had enough quality fade caused by their rot to maybe disrupt?

crq-yml 3y ago

Market investment is ultimately determined by plausible narrative, and by the national narratives at the broadest level. That is, if your industry is tuned in to the investment climate, the things being pursued match the things that people are saying "will make the country great", and are backed up by legislation and financing deals. In the previous era, the US was focused on a deindustrializing narrative: the things that made America great were "clean, high-tech" industry, high graduation rates and four-year degrees, and an outsourced empire that brought sprawling supply chains together "just in time". The new model has brought back the industry, so it needs an emphasis on concrete job skills, versus academic credentialing. It's in-sourced so the supply chain has started in on a radical shift. It emphasizes new energy sources with few foreign dependencies, moving the geopolitical stance towards isolation. The approach to the national balance sheet also has to change, but precisely how lacks for consensus. Like with the previous shifts there were some reasons to take the narrative in a certain direction: late 60's America had many environmental concerns, and fell into an energy crunch in the next decade. "Smart bombing" the Middle East to secure oil supplies brought together the national industries towards a common goal, and the money supply got a reset early on with the end of Bretton-Woods, that helped propel the Boomer generation towards homes-and-families participation within the system. Today we're still putting together the pieces of that narrative, but it's central to the political climate: the old two-party system is focused on exhausted narratives that don't actually excite ordinary people to vote. Therefore the candidates are rushing to put together platforms that rewrite the script and mobilize new demographics.

brvsft 3y ago

> The engines of capitalism only look 1 quarter ahead. As opposed to what, something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign?