Kaelon wrote to Boraxman <=-

I think true Capitalism, including the "free hand" of the market, needs freedom in order to function properly.

Which is at odds with the Elitists who have been around since the beginning. The Elitists have an idea that the world would work so much better if there was a small group of smart people directing everything and that the great unwashed masses didn't have to think anymore.

Of course, these Elitists think that they are the smart ones and that they should control everything. Never mind that every time that they've tried, they have utterly failed - usually with catastrophic results.

Cryptocurrency Bubble we have now), the wealthiest investors started to leverage their tremendous assets to co-opt banking institutions to
create insurance models that would, in essence, create soft-floors for failure.

I can't blame them for wanting that.

This should have been thwarted then and there.

Correct. But that was only allowed because of the Elitists in the society who saw doing so as a way to gain more power - and move toward their goal of complete control.

Corporations today are not engines of capitalism or innovation.

One thing that we need to remember, though, is that corporations are not the majority of the employers nor are they the driving force of our economy. It's easy to think of them as such because they are so large and visible.

The major drivers of the economy are the small businesses.

Look back just a year or so with the scamdemic. Who won? The large businesses. Who lost? The small businesses.

Why? Because the Elitists pulling the strings knew it was easy to control a few large businesses (which they already have good control of) than to try to control many, many small businesses.

They
are syndicates of vast capital control, and resemble nothing like the intentions of true capitalism -- which were not single-man corporations
or self-employed persons.

But those large corporations all started out as single-man operations. So in that respect, they exist because of "true" (whatever that means) capitalism.

The problem is that those large corporations have been corrupted by the Elitists - many of whom are in the gov't. Laws, regulations, etc. are put into place to prevent a small business from disrupting big business's business model.

What we have today is nothing
like the original corporations, because they have become so deeply interconnected with our institutions - especially our fiduriary
controls and our political organs.

I would argue that that interconnectedness is due to the piles and piles of gov't regulations placed on these corporations. They do it simply to survive. Or, maybe, the correct way to say it is "they used to do it to survive" and they do it today because that's the only way you can do it.

One might argue that following the Great Depression, the only way to mobilize all of society to combat both imminent economic institutional collapse and to defeat geopolitical threats, was to unite the pillars
of commerce and government into a single corporatist continuum. This
was certainly the approach of the Fascists and Communists. I would
argue it's ultimately what happened in the Western - now Global -
Order, in that Democracies learned how to harness and unify the
economic structures to unite military and industrial components to
thereby coopt commerce for political aims.

Oh! Now that is something that I didn't connect yet. Thank you.

I already saw the "create a crisis" play that they often use. (Create a crisis, then use that as an excuse to grab more power to "help avert a diaster", which then causes another crisis, and so on.) But I didn't see the connection to things like WWI and WWII where we "pulled together" and basically became a sociaist country "for a time" in order to fight off the threat.

Side note: I have an interest in railroads, so I've studied much history about them - and not just the Transcontinental Railroad. During WWII the gov't seized control of the railroads because they needed them to move resources around "efficiently". The end result was that after years of gov't control, the railroads were wrecked (too much deferred maintenance, old equipment, etc.). That was one of the reasons road travel became so popular after WWII - the railroads needed time and money to get their system back in order and they were deep in a hole that they needed to get out of.

One of the problems a gov't has is that once it has power, they will never let it go completely. And while I haven't researched it, I have heard people assert too much that many of the controls put in place during WWII are still there.


... I thought I was a wit, and I was half right.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatis
By: Dr. What to Kaelon on Tue Jul 19 2022 09:44 am

Kaelon wrote to Boraxman <=-

I think true Capitalism, including the "free hand" of the market, needs freedom in order to function properly.

Which is at odds with the Elitists who have been around since the beginning. The Elitists have an idea that the world would work so much better if there a small group of smart people directing everything and that the great unwash masses didn't have to think anymore.

Of course, these Elitists think that they are the smart ones and that they should control everything. Never mind that every time that they've tried, t have utterly failed - usually with catastrophic results.

Cryptocurrency Bubble we have now), the wealthiest investors started to leverage their tremendous assets to co-opt banking institutions to create insurance models that would, in essence, create soft-floors for failure.

I can't blame them for wanting that.

This should have been thwarted then and there.

Correct. But that was only allowed because of the Elitists in the society w saw doing so as a way to gain more power - and move toward their goal of complete control.

Corporations today are not engines of capitalism or innovation.

One thing that we need to remember, though, is that corporations are not the majority of the employers nor are they the driving force of our economy. It easy to think of them as such because they are so large and visible.

The major drivers of the economy are the small businesses.

Look back just a year or so with the scamdemic. Who won? The large businesses. Who lost? The small businesses.

Why? Because the Elitists pulling the strings knew it was easy to control a few large businesses (which they already have good control of) than to try t control many, many small businesses.

They
are syndicates of vast capital control, and resemble nothing like the intentions of true capitalism -- which were not single-man corporations or self-employed persons.

But those large corporations all started out as single-man operations. So i that respect, they exist because of "true" (whatever that means) capitalism.

The problem is that those large corporations have been corrupted by the Elitists - many of whom are in the gov't. Laws, regulations, etc. are put i place to prevent a small business from disrupting big business's business model.

What we have today is nothing
like the original corporations, because they have become so deeply interconnected with our institutions - especially our fiduriary controls and our political organs.

I would argue that that interconnectedness is due to the piles and piles of gov't regulations placed on these corporations. They do it simply to surviv Or, maybe, the correct way to say it is "they used to do it to survive" and they do it today because that's the only way you can do it.

One might argue that following the Great Depression, the only way to mobilize all of society to combat both imminent economic institutional collapse and to defeat geopolitical threats, was to unite the pillars of commerce and government into a single corporatist continuum. This was certainly the approach of the Fascists and Communists. I would argue it's ultimately what happened in the Western - now Global - Order, in that Democracies learned how to harness and unify the economic structures to unite military and industrial components to thereby coopt commerce for political aims.

Oh! Now that is something that I didn't connect yet. Thank you.

I already saw the "create a crisis" play that they often use. (Create a crisis, then use that as an excuse to grab more power to "help avert a diaster", which then causes another crisis, and so on.) But I didn't see th connection to things like WWI and WWII where we "pulled together" and basica became a sociaist country "for a time" in order to fight off the threat.

Side note: I have an interest in railroads, so I've studied much history abo them - and not just the Transcontinental Railroad. During WWII the gov't seized control of the railroads because they needed them to move resources around "efficiently". The end result was that after years of gov't control, the railroads were wrecked (too much deferred maintenance, old equipment, etc.). That was one of the reasons road travel became so popular after WWII the railroads needed time and money to get their system back in order and th were deep in a hole that they needed to get out of.

One of the problems a gov't has is that once it has power, they will never l it go completely. And while I haven't researched it, I have heard people assert too much that many of the controls put in place during WWII are still there.

... I thought I was a wit, and I was half right.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

In the US nuclear palnts are regualted by the government, but run privately. The industry has smaller groups consisting of representatives from plants travel from plant to plant and benchmark their operations and rank their facilities. Not only do you have to follow governemnt regulations, but you have a healthy peer group to welcome ways to improve plant operation.

In France, nuclear power generation is government run, and run well. Somehow they got past the bureacracy hangups normally related with government
agencies.

---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatis
By: Dr. What to Kaelon on Tue Jul 19 2022 09:44 am

The Elitists have an idea that the world would work so much better if there was a small group of smart people directing everything and that the great unwashed masses didn't have to think anymore.

Indeed. There is no doubt that a true meritocracy is the sworn enemy of corporatist group-think, and elitists cannot fathom truly fair and equitable competition for the best ideas.

One thing that we need to remember, though, is that corporations are not the majority of the employers nor are they the driving force of our economy. It's easy to think of them as such because they are so large and visible.

Quite right. Small businesses are the overwhelming employer and driving-force of economic activity in the United States. That said, let's not underestimate the power of the United States Federal Government, which alone, directly employees some 20-25% of our population. This is one of the many vast corporatist hold-overs from the Grand Unification of our pillars of economic and political power at the end of the Great Depression and the start of the Post-War Global Order.

The major drivers of the economy are the small businesses.

Of that there can be no doubt. My biggest concern is just how threatened all of these small businesses are, not necessarily from the competition of the large entities (they are largely *not* centers of innovation), but from the oppressive hand of excessive government and corporatist controls.

But those large corporations all started out as single-man operations. So in that respect, they exist because of "true" (whatever that means) capitalism.

The problem is that those large corporations have been corrupted by the Elitists - many of whom are in the gov't. Laws, regulations, etc. are put into place to prevent a small business from disrupting big business's business model.

And what a shame it is! We are in an era where the increasing optimization of revenue channels by the large players, enabled by a repeatedly-rigged market system with self-serving soft-floors in our financial and political institutions, prevent any future "next Facebook" or "next YouTube." At some point, these entities labeled "too big to fail" will collapse and bring much of our economy with them. But the massive gap between the wealthy and the poor in this country is largely a gulf enabled by these behemoths, and saner tax and anti-monopoly regulatory policies will inevitably prevail over these corporatist ones. Call me an optimist. ;)

I already saw the "create a crisis" play that they often use. (Create a crisis, then use that as an excuse to grab more power to "help avert a diaster", which then causes another crisis, and so on.) But I didn't see the connection to things like WWI and WWII where we "pulled together" and basically became a sociaist country "for a time" in order to fight off the threat.

Yes. The "for a time" essentially became "forever." And even if this wasn't the original design, it became the inevitable necessity. Following the Allied Victory at the end of the Second World War, a vast population of unemployable veterans returned to the United States and needed significant subsidizing by the government (in the form of the G.I. Bill, employer-based incentives, and significant tax and favorable loan terms - all of which exist to this day (for example, most veterans can buy homes without putting any money down). It's not that we shouldn't care for our veterans - we certainly should! - but the reasons for these vast subsidies, and their particular targets, were intended to prevent a general breakdown of our socioeconomic order. Ironically, they created countless bubbles that are now all falling apart. For example:

1. The College Bubble: This idea that "anyone and everyone can go to college" is a farcical myth, and other countries - especially those in the Eurozone - see college attendance below 50% of the population, with a greater and almost co-equal emphasis on Trades. So in the United States, our corporatist policy for subsidizing college through loans, grants, and tax incentives has led to self-fulfilling capital-generating engines that deliver little, if any, practical benefit to significant numbers of "graduates" and degree-holders. No, everyone can't go to college - and the Pandemic revealed just how worthless and radically over-priced these residential-based programs are. There's a reckoning where almost all of these small, liberal-arts colleges are going bankrupt now, and even larger universities have had to re-think their economic models to remain solvent.

2. The Housing Bubble: This idea that everyone can own a home without saving for it is a sound idea, but our intervention is borne of radical inflationary policies advanced by the Federal Reserve. If incomes had kept up with inflation since the end of the Second World War, the average minimum wage would now be $33/hour, rather than the absurd compromise we are all striving for across the states at $15/hour. And the price of homes would average at about $113,500, not the absurd $435,000 for a typical single family domicile. So what we have instead is a Debtor Nation of people borrowing vast sums of money that will take them decades to pay off, if they ever can pay them off (most won't), for property that no one can really afford because there is grossly insufficient income for our populations.

3. The Wealth Bubble: Big Government required Big Business, and with the era of consolidation came the vast gap between CEOs (who at the start of the Second World War, on average, made around 7x the average individual contributor's salary; and today make, on average, 385x the average individual contributor's salary today) and their Employees. On the one hand, you might think (as has been billed by Corporatists) "this is a great sign of the American Dream! Everyone should want to get rich!" But this is more than three times the conditions that led to the French Revolution -- only this time, the Corporatists have employed the Roman model of "bread and circuses" to distract the under-earning masses with a steady diet of cheap junk food and reality television.

Side note: I have an interest in railroads, so I've studied much history about them - and not just the Transcontinental Railroad. During WWII the gov't seized control of the railroads because they needed them to move resources around "efficiently". The end result was that after years of gov't control, the railroads were wrecked (too much deferred maintenance, old equipment, etc.). That was one of the reasons road travel became so popular after WWII - the railroads needed time and money to get their system back in order and they were deep in a hole that they needed to get out of.

That is fascinating! I had no idea that railroads were seized in this manner, but it does explain a lot of the grotesque inefficiencies of Amtrak (and how the Northeast Corridor, which is absurdly expensive, subsidizes the entire network, which remains ridiculously cheap and unused). Again, government interference in industries that need to be left to the natural supply-and-demand processes of a truly free market is largely responsible for the calamity in our national infrastructure.

One of the problems a gov't has is that once it has power, they will never let it go completely. And while I haven't researched it, I have heard people assert too much that many of the controls put in place during WWII are still there.

This is true, but far from intentional tyranny this Corporatist Syndicate that we have running our political and economic institutions is principally interested in maintaining efficient capital extraction models, not accumulating power necessarily. This is why social discord is particularly unacceptable to Corporatists, but who now have made a dangerous ally in extremists across the political spectrum - both Far Right Authoritarians and Far Left Radical Extremists - to advance their economic aims. Now there are social and political policies that these extremists are cashing in on, and it is creating the very social upheaval that will drive further division and a reckoning.

I share Robert Heinlein's view -- that the social scientists have brought our civilization to the brink of ruin, and that perhaps the veterans (or some other civic-righteous institution) will step in and restore order, and reorganize our society into those who compete meritocratically and those who simply subsist off of the safety nets that must humanely be erected. But I doubt either one of us will be alive to witness the true reckoning of what Corporatists have in store and what true Capitalists must do to unseat this modern tyranny.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Kaelon to Dr. What on Tue Jul 19 2022 04:43 pm

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatis
By: Dr. What to Kaelon on Tue Jul 19 2022 09:44 am

The Elitists have an idea that the world would work so much better if the was a small group of smart people directing everything and that the great unwashed masses didn't have to think anymore.

Indeed. There is no doubt that a true meritocracy is the sworn enemy of cor

One thing that we need to remember, though, is that corporations are not majority of the employers nor are they the driving force of our economy. It's easy to think of them as such because they are so large and visible.

Quite right. Small businesses are the overwhelming employer and driving-for f our population. This is one of the many vast corporatist hold-overs from

The major drivers of the economy are the small businesses.

Of that there can be no doubt. My biggest concern is just how threatened al ive government and corporatist controls.

But those large corporations all started out as single-man operations. S in that respect, they exist because of "true" (whatever that means) capitalism.

The problem is that those large corporations have been corrupted by the Elitists - many of whom are in the gov't. Laws, regulations, etc. are pu into place to prevent a small business from disrupting big business's business model.

And what a shame it is! We are in an era where the increasing optimization re "next Facebook" or "next YouTube." At some point, these entities labeled e behemoths, and saner tax and anti-monopoly regulatory policies will inevit

I already saw the "create a crisis" play that they often use. (Create a crisis, then use that as an excuse to grab more power to "help avert a diaster", which then causes another crisis, and so on.) But I didn't see the connection to things like WWI and WWII where we "pulled together" and basically became a sociaist country "for a time" in order to fight off th threat.

Yes. The "for a time" essentially became "forever." And even if this wasn' o the United States and needed significant subsidizing by the government (in hout putting any money down). It's not that we shouldn't care for our veter nically, they created countless bubbles that are now all falling apart. For

1. The College Bubble: This idea that "anyone and everyone can go to college Trades. So in the United States, our corporatist policy for subsidizing col duates" and degree-holders. No, everyone can't go to college - and the Pand oing bankrupt now, and even larger universities have had to re-think their e

2. The Housing Bubble: This idea that everyone can own a home without saving e Second World War, the average minimum wage would now be $33/hour, rather t gle family domicile. So what we have instead is a Debtor Nation of people b y insufficient income for our populations.

3. The Wealth Bubble: Big Government required Big Business, and with the era , on average, 385x the average individual contributor's salary today) and th more than three times the conditions that led to the French Revolution -- on sion.

Side note: I have an interest in railroads, so I've studied much history about them - and not just the Transcontinental Railroad. During WWII the gov't seized control of the railroads because they needed them to move resources around "efficiently". The end result was that after years of gov't control, the railroads were wrecked (too much deferred maintenance, old equipment, etc.). That was one of the reasons road travel became so popular after WWII - the railroads needed time and money to get their sys back in order and they were deep in a hole that they needed to get out of

That is fascinating! I had no idea that railroads were seized in this manne ridiculously cheap and unused). Again, government interference in industrie

One of the problems a gov't has is that once it has power, they will neve let it go completely. And while I haven't researched it, I have heard people assert too much that many of the controls put in place during WWII are still there.

This is true, but far from intentional tyranny this Corporatist Syndicate th we have running our political and economic institutions is principally inter w have made a dangerous ally in extremists across the political spectrum - b n, and it is creating the very social upheaval that will drive further divis

I share Robert Heinlein's view -- that the social scientists have brought ou se who compete meritocratically and those who simply subsist off of the safe do to unseat this modern tyranny.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

I fear a meritocracy can be gamed and infiltrated by the people they wish to keep out of power. If service guaratees citizenship and the rights to vote
and hold office, you'll see folks who abhor the concepts of a meritocracy follow the rules into order to inside.

---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Kaelon wrote to Dr. What <=-

Indeed. There is no doubt that a true meritocracy is the sworn enemy
of corporatist group-think, and elitists cannot fathom truly fair and equitable competition for the best ideas.

That's because the Elitists think they are so much smarter than everyone.

To allow competition would be to invite the reminder that they aren't nearly as smart as they believe.

Of that there can be no doubt. My biggest concern is just how
threatened all of these small businesses are, not necessarily from the competition of the large entities (they are largely *not* centers of innovation), but from the oppressive hand of excessive government and corporatist controls.

That is where their biggest threat is, certainly. And it keeps getting worse.

can buy homes without putting any money down). It's not that we
shouldn't care for our veterans - we certainly should! - but the
reasons for these vast subsidies, and their particular targets, were intended to prevent a general breakdown of our socioeconomic order.

And that's one of the problem with gov't programs: They tend to outlive their need and take on a life of their own - for their own perpetuation.

That is fascinating! I had no idea that railroads were seized in this manner, but it does explain a lot of the grotesque inefficiencies of Amtrak (and how the Northeast Corridor, which is absurdly expensive, subsidizes the entire network, which remains ridiculously cheap and unused). Again, government interference in industries that need to be left to the natural supply-and-demand processes of a truly free market
is largely responsible for the calamity in our national infrastructure.

Gov't interference in any industry always makes it less efficient - in all ways.This continues to be proven time and time again.

The problem is that the Elitists will never acknowledge that and keep pushing their failed ideas again and again.


... I'm in shape ... round's a shape isn't it?
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Moondog wrote to Dr. What <=-

In the US nuclear palnts are regualted by the government, but run privately. The industry has smaller groups consisting of
representatives from plants travel from plant to plant and benchmark
their operations and rank their facilities. Not only do you have to follow governemnt regulations, but you have a healthy peer group to welcome ways to improve plant operation.

But I could make the argument that:
1. The gov't employed most of the actual experts (as opposed to the fake ones that we see today) in nuclear science.
2. Even bureaucrats understand that making your constituents glow is bad for their political career. i.e. they know to keep their nose out of it and let the experts run things.


... Professionals built the Titanic, amateurs built the ark.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Moondog wrote to Kaelon <=-

I fear a meritocracy can be gamed and infiltrated by the people they
wish to keep out of power. If service guaratees citizenship and the rights to vote and hold office, you'll see folks who abhor the concepts
of a meritocracy follow the rules into order to inside.

That's possible. But remember to succeed in a meritocracy you have to actually accomplish things.

I'm reminded of a Neil Gaiman commencement speech you can see on YouTube. (It's really good. You should watch it.) To paraphrase it:

He said that the 3 things to do are:
1. Be competant.
2. Be on time.
3. Be nice.

"And you don't even need all 3!"

If you are competant and always on time, people will put up with you.
If you are competant and always nice, people will cut you some slack with deadlines.
If you are on time and always nice, people will help you be competant.

The people who can't make it in a meritocracy can't even get 2 of those 3 - and they usually can't even do 1 of the 3 things.


... Professionals built the Titanic, amateurs built the ark.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Dr. What to Moondog on Wed Jul 20 2022 08:07 am

Moondog wrote to Kaelon <=-

I fear a meritocracy can be gamed and infiltrated by the people they wish to keep out of power. If service guaratees citizenship and the rights to vote and hold office, you'll see folks who abhor the concepts of a meritocracy follow the rules into order to inside.

That's possible. But remember to succeed in a meritocracy you have to actua accomplish things.

I'm reminded of a Neil Gaiman commencement speech you can see on YouTube. (I really good. You should watch it.) To paraphrase it:

He said that the 3 things to do are:
1. Be competant.
2. Be on time.
3. Be nice.

"And you don't even need all 3!"

If you are competant and always on time, people will put up with you.
If you are competant and always nice, people will cut you some slack with deadlines.
If you are on time and always nice, people will help you be competant.

The people who can't make it in a meritocracy can't even get 2 of those 3 - they usually can't even do 1 of the 3 things.

... Professionals built the Titanic, amateurs built the ark.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

In one of Philip K Dick's short stories there was a brother in law of the main
character that was the member of the dirty hippie party. He had long hair, was unshaven, and didn't bathe every day. The other party was called the
clean cut party, and they all dressed very well, were bathed and clean
shaven. People get tired of looking at dirty hippies and vote the clean cuts into office. The next day police come knocking on the main character's
door, looking for his brother in law instead of finding a dirty hippie, he's clean cut and was getting ready to go to a clean cut polital involovement meeting. The police then look at the main character, who just got off work, a nd began to question why his clothese are slighty wrinkled, he's a little swea ty, and it appears he hadn't shaved since that morning.

When he asked his brother in law why he sold out, he tells him he hasn't. In order to change the system, it's easier to change it from within than to
stand in the streets and protest the system. Underneath those clean clothes and smell of soap, there's a dirty hippie trying to get out.

---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Moondog to Kaelon on Wed Jul 20 2022 01:43 am

I fear a meritocracy can be gamed and infiltrated by the people they wish to keep out of power. If service guaratees citizenship and the rights to vote and hold office, you'll see folks who abhor the concepts of a meritocracy follow the rules into order to inside.

I guess one of the things we would need to make sure in this Heinlein-esque future where veterans seize control, is that civic education / indoctrination and a sufficient tour of duty for service to guarantee meritocratic outcomes, rather than just checking off of boxes, would need to be guaranteed. How, though, would be anyone's guess.

Did Heinlein ever go into greater depth on his vision beyond just Starship Troopers?
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Dr. What to Kaelon on Wed Jul 20 2022 08:07 am

That's because the Elitists think they are so much smarter than everyone.

To allow competition would be to invite the reminder that they aren't nearly as smart as they believe.

Yes, exactly. And in genuine competition, greater wealth would be created - so governments can reasonably expect to collect larger tax revenues than when they approach a corporatist model. It's still surprising to me that there isn't an enlightened despot amongst these elites - like Russia's Peter the Great or England's Elizabeth I - that recognizes that by cultivating the spirit of true meritocratic competition, you actually create more opportunity and wealth, and can drive even greater geopolitical outcomes. After all, the Mercantile Economy that enabled England to colonize the Americas and defeat the Spanish could never have happened had Henry VIII not begun to break up the feudal-era guilds and shatter the noble houses.

And that's one of the problem with gov't programs: They tend to outlive their need and take on a life of their own - for their own perpetuation.

Gov't interference in any industry always makes it less efficient - in all ways.This continues to be proven time and time again.

Indeed.

The problem is that the Elitists will never acknowledge that and keep pushing their failed ideas again and again.

Will it take a revolution to unseat the Elitists? Or do we just have to hope for another Great Depression -- which isn't out of the realm of probability right now given all of the leading indicators -- which would assuredly wipe out all of the entrenched incumbents?
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Moondog to Kaelon on Wed Jul 20 2022 01:43 am

I fear a meritocracy can be gamed and infiltrated by the people they wish to keep out of power. If service guaratees citizenship and the rights to vote and hold office, you'll see folks who abhor the concepts of a meritocracy follow the rules into order to inside.

A meritocracy will always, always be gamed. If you have a system where taking risky loans to hoard resources and extract rent pays off, then people will game the system that way. People who flip property, take advantage of low interest to leverage and hoard, game the system.

And you have to define 'merit', which is very culturally biased. EVERY system is a 'meritocracy'. Even Communism is. You need skills to be top dog. Theocracies reward on merit. Fascists reward on merit.

Playing 'the game' is a skill, and the best win/

You need to define what behaviour you want to encourage first.

---
þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Moondog wrote to Dr. What <=-

When he asked his brother in law why he sold out, he tells him he
hasn't. In order to change the system, it's easier to change it from within than to stand in the streets and protest the system. Underneath those clean clothes and smell of soap, there's a dirty hippie trying to get out.

Which is what has happened. I recently saw a video (providence unknown) of Klaus Schawb admitting that's what they are doing: infiltrating the various organizations and destroying from within.

And a Soros-funded group is doing that with our voting systems: installing their people as the ones who run the voting process to subvert from within.


... The wise open their minds, but a fool opens his mouth.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Kaelon wrote to Dr. What <=-

Yes, exactly. And in genuine competition, greater wealth would be
created - so governments can reasonably expect to collect larger tax revenues than when they approach a corporatist model.

Which has been proven time and time again.

Yet...

It's still
surprising to me that there isn't an enlightened despot amongst these elites - like Russia's Peter the Great or England's Elizabeth I - that recognizes that by cultivating the spirit of true meritocratic competition, you actually create more opportunity and wealth, and can drive even greater geopolitical outcomes.

You have to remember that these Ignorant Elitists are ideologues. They can't see reality. They can only see their ideology and any fact that goes against that ideology is ignored or evaded.

Thomas Sowell has whole books on this very subject.

Will it take a revolution to unseat the Elitists? Or do we just have to hope for another Great Depression -- which isn't out of the realm of probability right now given all of the leading indicators -- which
would assuredly wipe out all of the entrenched incumbents?

My hope is that we can get these career politicians out (and hopefully jailed afterwards). But that's a slim hope.

We are already in a recession and a depression is almost sure now due to their ignorant meddling.

The problem here is that if we are in a depression, the miseducated will elect another FDR - and those types - which will set us back.

We need a strong court system that will strike down any laws that aren't 100% constitutional. No legislating from the bench.

Any congress-critter that voted for such an unconstitutional law should be removed from office and now allowed to hold any office ever again.

I can probably think of more ideas, but most are probably not feasible.


... It's 10:00pm. Do you know where your daughter is?
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Kaelon wrote to Moondog <=-

Did Heinlein ever go into greater depth on his vision beyond just
Starship Troopers?

I was never a big Heinlein, so I can't speak to that. At least in Starship Troopers, the need to do military service to be a full citizen was a nice plot device.

I do remember reading a nice short story that had a McGuffin of a device that could scan your brain to see if you read, and understood, a book. In that story, you had to read at least 3 books per year in order to vote. That number books went higher if you sought public office.

The goal was, simply put, to keep stupid people out of office and from voting. Which is a solution to a problem we can appreciate today.


... Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Kaelon wrote to Moondog <=-

Did Heinlein ever go into greater depth on his vision beyond just
Starship Troopers? _____

Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough for Love, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress lay out a pretty strange universe that RAH envisioned.




... Only a part, not the whole
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Kaelon to Moondog on Wed Jul 20 2022 01:21 pm

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Moondog to Kaelon on Wed Jul 20 2022 01:43 am

I fear a meritocracy can be gamed and infiltrated by the people they wish keep out of power. If service guaratees citizenship and the rights to vo and hold office, you'll see folks who abhor the concepts of a meritocracy follow the rules into order to inside.

I guess one of the things we would need to make sure in this Heinlein-esque ing off of boxes, would need to be guaranteed. How, though, would be anyone

Did Heinlein ever go into greater depth on his vision beyond just Starship T _____
-=: Kaelon :=-

I never heard any more about the idea. I chalk it up to writers writing
their characters as absolutes, and couldn't fathom someone that doesn't
believe in an idea would go through all the steps.

Back in the 1990's this discussion came up when someone brought up that Bill Clinton wrote a letter to colonel in order to excuse himself from slective serv
ice. Another person claimed this would've been a great opportunity for Clinto n to be weeded out of any future political aspirations. I played devil's advocate, and provided example of a teacher that avoided getting conscripted and thrown into a front line infantry unit by intentionally joining, testing high on the ASVAB test, and going the special forces route. By the time he finished his training, his required time in the service had been met. No combat, or at least activity somewhere else he could confirm or deny.

Clinton may not have been a hard charger type, but with
his academic background I could see him do well in language schools and intelligence or counterintelligence. Instead of a battlefield, he would've se en a tour of duty in an air conditioned office.


---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Dr. What to Moondog on Thu Jul 21 2022 08:40 am

Moondog wrote to Dr. What <=-

When he asked his brother in law why he sold out, he tells him he hasn't. In order to change the system, it's easier to change it from within than to stand in the streets and protest the system. Underneath those clean clothes and smell of soap, there's a dirty hippie trying to get out.

Which is what has happened. I recently saw a video (providence unknown) of Klaus Schawb admitting that's what they are doing: infiltrating the various organizations and destroying from within.

And a Soros-funded group is doing that with our voting systems: installing their people as the ones who run the voting process to subvert from within.

... The wise open their minds, but a fool opens his mouth.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

I forgot the name of the story. That was a secondary plot which drove the
main story. The main character was going through a moral dilema because he
was moderate and could see merits of both partie's arguments, and pick and choose what he agreed on. Every apartment building would have an easily
access but private expert system which would act as a confessional and moral compass. When he explained the situation with the machine. it replied along his opinion it is good to be in a society where it is good to have a balance between extremist views. After the election and the Cleans take over, he consults the machine again, and it tells him balance and compromise are dangerous, and if he continues to spew that sharing crap, he will be reported.
When he asked the machine how it could pull a 180 in opinion, it explains
that it's funding comes from whoever is in power. The moderate regime is not under control any more. Morals are set by whoever controls the definition of right and wrong.


---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Moondog to Kaelon on Thu Jul 21 2022 03:03 pm

devil's advocate, and provided example of a teacher that avoided getting conscripted and thrown into a front line infantry unit by intentionally joining, testing high on the ASVAB test, and going the special forces route. By the time he finished his training, his required time in the service had been met. No combat, or at least activity somewhere else he could confirm or deny.

Great story, and absolutely see this playing out had Bill Clinton applied himself to this scenario. To further the Devil's Advocacy, though, anyone who lived through the nightmare of the Korean War will attest to the brutality of ever being drafted and sent to the front lines. With Vietnam being far bloodier and more endless, I can see people not wanting to tempt fate with conscription-and-testing games.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Kaelon on Thu Jul 21 2022 07:33 am

Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough for Love, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress lay out a pretty strange universe that RAH envisioned.

I guess I need to read these! If they extend this strange Fascist/Anti-Fascist universe portrayed in the Federated Territories depicted within Starship Troopers, I am definitely keen to see how this existence plays itself out. Thanks :).
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Moondog wrote to Dr. What <=-

When he asked the machine how it could pull a 180 in opinion, it
explains that it's funding comes from whoever is in power. The
moderate regime is not under control any more. Morals are set by
whoever controls the definition of right and wrong.

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.


... "Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used curses?
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Kaelon to Moondog on Thu Jul 21 2022 07:56 pm

Re: Capitalism & Corporatism
By: Moondog to Kaelon on Thu Jul 21 2022 03:03 pm

devil's advocate, and provided example of a teacher that avoided getting conscripted and thrown into a front line infantry unit by intentionally joining, testing high on the ASVAB test, and going the special forces rou By the time he finished his training, his required time in the service ha been met. No combat, or at least activity somewhere else he could confir or deny.

Great story, and absolutely see this playing out had Bill Clinton applied hi sent to the front lines. With Vietnam being far bloodier and more endless, _____
-=: Kaelon :=-

That is the merit of volunteering. If you ou can pick your path, you
increase your chances of staying away from the front lines. I worked with a guy that joined the Navy and never set foot on a boat, let alone spend months on a cruise. he intentionally chose fuel transport, which alowed him to be sent to a joint Navy/ Marine base in Yuma, Arizona. The closest thing to a
sea out there was the dune sea where the sarlacc pit is in Return of the
Jedi was filmed.

---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

First of all, I'd argue that most people are not actual democrats and therefor
the rethorical questions fall on their faces. You can see this today: everybod
wants democracy, but once they don't get the results they want they try to break the system. The efforts placed in isolating political oponents break democracy.

Exactly. Many "Democrats" here in the states are ok with people expressing their opinions, so long as they match their own. If they do not, they want
the ability of those persons to express their opinions to be very limited.


* SLMR 2.1a * "High as a kite, everybody! Goofballs!!"-Chief Wiggum

---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP