4 ms·

I see some parallels to Curtis Yarvin and the Boys that follow his philosophy. The funny part, with all this boys is, that they do not recognise, that there uto

I see some parallels to Curtis Yarvin and the Boys that follow his philosophy. The funny part, with all this boys is, that they do not recognise, that there utopia e.g. new society/state, does not work without the current society that sponsors them. Basically, the same with some global corporations, which literally suck society dry (infrastructure, resources, education, labour, health system) and give almost nothing back (except for a few workers and too few taxes). I think the American dream is over. It's an empty shell that's all about making a nice life for yourself at the expense of others.

notarobot123 1y ago
> I think the American dream is over. It's an empty shell that's all about making a nice life for yourself at the expense of others. At which point in history was it not about exactly that?
- geodel 1y ago
  I think 1960 NE (Nostalgic Era) was great.
  - throwawayoldie 1y ago
    Definitely...as long as you were a white Christian heterosexual man.
- ajb 1y ago
  Probably the homesteading era. Although only if you don't count Native Americans...
  - al_borland 1y ago
    Even then, it wasn’t an easy life, they just had different challenges. That’s why we have the right to pursue happiness, and not happiness itself. One can always pursue it, regardless of circumstance. Some would argue that the pursuit is where the happiness is actually found; it’s not a destination.
- throw0101b 1y ago
  >> It's an empty shell that's all about making a nice life for yourself at the expense of others. > At which point in history was it not about exactly that? Up until (at least) the 1960s. In the mid-twentieth century corporate management's focus was more broad: > This view was shared not only by scholars but, surprisingly, by many corporate executives. In 1949 General Foods’ president Clarence Francis told Congress that he had a “three-way responsibility to the American consumer, to our associates in this business, and to the 68,000 [stockholders in General Foods]. We . . . would serve (the company’s) interests badly by shifting the fruits of the enterprise too heavily toward any one of those groups.” Two years later, the president of Standard Oil of New Jersey claimed that managers needed “to conduct the affairs of the enterprise in such a way as to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups—stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.” So widespread were such views that, in 1959, one writer in the Harvard Business Review complained that it was no longer “fashionable for the corporation to take gleeful pride in making money.” Instead, he complained, it was typical “for the corporation to show that it is a great innovator; more specifically, a great public benefactor; and, very particularly, that it exists ‘to serve the public’.” > Even the law bent, at least a bit, toward this “social” view of corporate purpose. When the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld corporate charitable donations in its 1956 A.P. Smith Manufacturing Co. decision, it rested its judgment less on any benefit that would accrue to the company than on the belief that corporations had responsibilities beyond those owed to shareholders; corporations needed, the court held, to “acknowledge and discharge social as well as private responsibilities as members of the communities within which they operate.” * https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-history/ https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-hi...
geodel 1y ago
> Basically, the same with some global corporations, which literally suck society dry Not that I found corporations great, but there is no indication that society was doing really well before global corporations existed.
- wahnfrieden 1y ago
  Read more Graeber & Wengrow
a4isms 1y ago
> I think the American dream is over. “The reason they call it The American Dream is that you have to be asleep to believe it.” —George Carlin (1937 - 2008)
- PicassoCTs 1y ago
  It got real, only because a - at the time seemingly viable alternative reared its head. So, ironically, the system that won the system-competition we call the cold war, only works- when under stress in systemic competition.
  - thmsths 1y ago
    I feel like that makes sense actually. One core tenet of the "free market" is the need for competition, otherwise complacency and rent seeking happen and things get bad. If that apply for corporations, why not economic systems too?
    - ddq 1y ago
      The market of markets must be free, or the idea of a free market is a myth. Which it is. Capitalism cannot simply be removed, it must be outcompeted by a superior usurper.
  - xphos 1y ago
    I think we are mixing up timelines here the rent seeking and financializing happens in 1981 onward not starting at 1991 when the USSR dissolves There is just not any real accountability to the next generation of stock holders its classic optimizing toward the local minimum and is why some many private equity firms annihilate companies and sell them for parts. We use to have unions than Regan eliminate tons of union power and bars the governments union's from arguing. We have structural barriers in existing laws against sector wide unions, so the remaining unions have no incentive to build competitive sectors just competitive wages without respect to economics. I think companies have just pushed and pushed for labor laws that favor larger companies and players. That hollowing of the rule set has dropped a bomb in companies optimization functions. You cannot choose not to do stock buy backs now because the stock holders complain and leave for a someone more willing to inflate assets. If you want the clearest picture look at Intel they spent tremendously on stock buy backs because it was good for investors and let there RnD budget cratered when compared to its competitors. They basically aren't a respectable company anymore but those stock investors aren't destroyed they moved to Nvidia and Apple.
FireBeyond 1y ago
> Curtis Yarvin and the Boys that follow his philosophy Curtis has done a good job of getting people to forget his white nationalism, though he insists he isn't one, but he's quite comfortable with it. > It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff. And though he later wrote articles saying "I'm not a white nationalist", they were largely sympathetic to the "cause" and then just said "but I'm not one."

notarobot123 1y ago

> I think the American dream is over. It's an empty shell that's all about making a nice life for yourself at the expense of others. At which point in history was it not about exactly that?

geodel 1y ago
I think 1960 NE (Nostalgic Era) was great.
- throwawayoldie 1y ago
  Definitely...as long as you were a white Christian heterosexual man.
ajb 1y ago
Probably the homesteading era. Although only if you don't count Native Americans...
- al_borland 1y ago
  Even then, it wasn’t an easy life, they just had different challenges. That’s why we have the right to pursue happiness, and not happiness itself. One can always pursue it, regardless of circumstance. Some would argue that the pursuit is where the happiness is actually found; it’s not a destination.
throw0101b 1y ago
>> It's an empty shell that's all about making a nice life for yourself at the expense of others. > At which point in history was it not about exactly that? Up until (at least) the 1960s. In the mid-twentieth century corporate management's focus was more broad: > This view was shared not only by scholars but, surprisingly, by many corporate executives. In 1949 General Foods’ president Clarence Francis told Congress that he had a “three-way responsibility to the American consumer, to our associates in this business, and to the 68,000 [stockholders in General Foods]. We . . . would serve (the company’s) interests badly by shifting the fruits of the enterprise too heavily toward any one of those groups.” Two years later, the president of Standard Oil of New Jersey claimed that managers needed “to conduct the affairs of the enterprise in such a way as to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups—stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.” So widespread were such views that, in 1959, one writer in the Harvard Business Review complained that it was no longer “fashionable for the corporation to take gleeful pride in making money.” Instead, he complained, it was typical “for the corporation to show that it is a great innovator; more specifically, a great public benefactor; and, very particularly, that it exists ‘to serve the public’.” > Even the law bent, at least a bit, toward this “social” view of corporate purpose. When the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld corporate charitable donations in its 1956 A.P. Smith Manufacturing Co. decision, it rested its judgment less on any benefit that would accrue to the company than on the belief that corporations had responsibilities beyond those owed to shareholders; corporations needed, the court held, to “acknowledge and discharge social as well as private responsibilities as members of the communities within which they operate.” * https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-history/ https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-hi...

geodel 1y ago

> Basically, the same with some global corporations, which literally suck society dry Not that I found corporations great, but there is no indication that society was doing really well before global corporations existed.

wahnfrieden 1y ago
Read more Graeber & Wengrow

a4isms 1y ago

> I think the American dream is over. “The reason they call it The American Dream is that you have to be asleep to believe it.” —George Carlin (1937 - 2008)

PicassoCTs 1y ago
It got real, only because a - at the time seemingly viable alternative reared its head. So, ironically, the system that won the system-competition we call the cold war, only works- when under stress in systemic competition.
- thmsths 1y ago
  I feel like that makes sense actually. One core tenet of the "free market" is the need for competition, otherwise complacency and rent seeking happen and things get bad. If that apply for corporations, why not economic systems too?
  - ddq 1y ago
    The market of markets must be free, or the idea of a free market is a myth. Which it is. Capitalism cannot simply be removed, it must be outcompeted by a superior usurper.
- xphos 1y ago
  I think we are mixing up timelines here the rent seeking and financializing happens in 1981 onward not starting at 1991 when the USSR dissolves There is just not any real accountability to the next generation of stock holders its classic optimizing toward the local minimum and is why some many private equity firms annihilate companies and sell them for parts. We use to have unions than Regan eliminate tons of union power and bars the governments union's from arguing. We have structural barriers in existing laws against sector wide unions, so the remaining unions have no incentive to build competitive sectors just competitive wages without respect to economics. I think companies have just pushed and pushed for labor laws that favor larger companies and players. That hollowing of the rule set has dropped a bomb in companies optimization functions. You cannot choose not to do stock buy backs now because the stock holders complain and leave for a someone more willing to inflate assets. If you want the clearest picture look at Intel they spent tremendously on stock buy backs because it was good for investors and let there RnD budget cratered when compared to its competitors. They basically aren't a respectable company anymore but those stock investors aren't destroyed they moved to Nvidia and Apple.

FireBeyond 1y ago

> Curtis Yarvin and the Boys that follow his philosophy Curtis has done a good job of getting people to forget his white nationalism, though he insists he isn't one, but he's quite comfortable with it. > It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff. And though he later wrote articles saying "I'm not a white nationalist", they were largely sympathetic to the "cause" and then just said "but I'm not one."