Conner Habib, on Progressives Disconnect From Spirituality |401|

#81
I was clearly projecting my pet peewees in discussions like these. People have no functional or real-life understanding what capitalism, free markets or unconstrained competition mean (in theory, in history and in reality, including actual historical results of approximations of each of these).
Understood, and a quality and gracious response Satyanveshi.

As for your definitions of of M0/M1 and M3/M4 (and further derivatives) is confusing to me (if I follow the post 60s modern monetary creation reality, not theory, of monetary aggregates).
Yes, the M-Series definitions are really reporting measures and not execution terminology. You will not find a person who holds $10 billion in wealth, talking in terms of M3, M4, etc. This is the lexicon of economists. And just like one's accountant in reality knows absolutely very little about business, even though they publish its P&L, Balance Sheet and 1099's, etc. - even so, economists who look at money supply typically understand very little about paper trading, bonds, wraps, instruments, capitalization, earnings and wealth. But it is often the only lexicon we have available.

Below is a lexicon conversion chart extracted from one of my strategy docs - which helps ensure that govemt economists (when they are in the meetings) can relate to the flows of wealth we discuss. There is another chart entirely where wealth REALLY occurs... but this helps clarify the two distinct languages of money for me (keeps me out of trouble with my terminology - but more importantly, sublimates to the 'economists' in the room that they might not truly have competence inside the domain which is being discussed).

The bottom line, these are all different things, and it harms the discourse when we treat it all as one thing: Wealth - Capital - Reserves - Funding - Earnings - Extraction - Money - Retail Money - Cash - Currency
Money Supply.png
 
#82
The bottom line is...

1. When Extraction get onerous, people suffer.
a. Socialism is simply a period of Comprehensive Extraction and Confiscation of Wealth (it is not actually an economy nor theory of economics)​
b. The wealth falls into an elite 1% hands, ANY TIME the Capital Cycle is removed​
c. This period can sustain itself if the country produces wealth out of its natural resources, above a critical ratio to its Money Supply.​
d. This period can sustain itself if the country's currency is indexed to that of a stronger nation's currency - and the population functions on currency alone (a form of enslavement, eg. Bolivia, Cuba, Guinea, etc.)​
1.c and 1.d above are called Monism.

2. There is no such thing as a 'Capital Free' economy
a. If M3 and M4 Capital is removed, drugs, sex, slavery, crime, mafia, religious institutions (which is why Islam and Socialism are silent partners), laundering and food-medicine-water barters become the defacto capital exchange (they are the only things of value which remain).​
b. Once the Capital Cycle is removed - Extraction falls to ZERO and the economy collapses.​
3. A resource-rich Monist country can SKR wrap its in-ground ready wealth and create more Extraction to survive artificially - however its people will suffer as a result, because they hold no capital cycle from which to benefit from this charade. Unless the in-ground Wealth is extaordinary (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, etc.)

4. A Monist nation therefore MUST remove all civil strengths (capital, rights, guns, organizations, media, etc) and additionally, tender appearances of 'helping the poor' in order to maintain civil control.

5. The government of a Monist nation therefore, becomes its most valuable asset and must be protected at ALL costs. That includes nuclear weapons and the holding hostage of its own people. This latter is called a 'Screaming Shield' effect. You cannot dethrone my government because 'what will the poor do?' (Venezuela) - or even worse....

...my government is so important now, that I am willing to not only sacrifice my people, but exterminate most of global humanity as well, in order to protect it (Modern day Iran, The Third Reich, post WWII Soviet Union, for example....)

This is the Problem of Collective Socialization - its inevitable outcome is War (with a capital W).
 
Last edited:
#83
And then finally, of course - this is why there exists a solid fingerprint relationship (not correlation) between the level of socialism practiced by a nation, and the overall well being and happiness of its people.

 
#84
Hi Eric I appreciate your multi-dimensional multi-level approach to this... refreshing. so, my push back is just to explore different facets of the gemstone.
[QUOTE do you think do you think="Eric Newhill, post: 127741, member: 4146"]
Humanity evolves by putting its ideologies, it's ways of life, to the fitness test.
[/QUOTE]
maybe but it seems to me we have some complicated variables. I've always enjoyed hardcore history... the podcast... one of my takeaways is that Fortune / luck / Providence can play huge role in some of these turning points: a battle is won or lost by the weather; Kubla Khan dies and therefore all his Marauders are ordered to return the edges of Europe which they've essentially conquered, and on and on. it's another version of the myth of progress thing and the history is written by the winners thing. I guess I'm saying I'm a little bit hesitant reading too much into the stories we tell ourselves about our Fitness / survivability.


To be fair, I don't not comprehend what most people in forums like this are calling "spirituality"
this is the multi-dimensional / non-overlapping-universes part. seems to me that morality is a personal thing and difficult to scale up. I don't understand "God needs our help" politics.
 
#85
He presents that personality doesn't he? If you read his books, or attend a lecture of his (i.e. "Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills' or 'A Skeptic's Guide to the Universe') - you will find him cleverly spinning the method of casuistry and flawed mindset which is cruxial in enforcing thought. He knows what he is doing with regard to methodical cynicism and promoting an enforced conclusion.

Is he really all that competent inside the philosophy of science? No. An interesting combination.
the other thing I remember from my interactions is that he can be kind of sloppy with the data / numbers / science. I suspect he's totally on point regarding his professional neurological career, but plays it fast and loose in his role as a skeptic because he can. I seem to remember calling him on a couple of pretty substantial blunders he made with regard to analyzing Dean Radin's work. It was clear he hadn't put in put much effort the analysis... probably because just assumed there was nothing there. he came across as bush-league, of course, his audience doesn't care... just another sermon from the pontiff.

http://content.blubrry.com/skeptiko/skeptiko-2007-12-07-62055.mp3
https://skeptiko.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/skepticast2007-12-12.mp3
 
#86
Don't get me wrong - I support collectivism for specific social needs. But I do believe the majority of wealth should be placed back into the economy at the M0 and M1 level and not be hoarded for paper trading to make more wealth, which benefits no one (which is why Royalty loves Socialism). The key resides in the development of solving problems, evolving and providing incentive for joy, growth and self realization if people want that. Collectivism does not serve that social goal set well, because that is not its purpose. However, let's be clear - we are a socialist society now (see below). Socialism both creates the problem in the first place, then blames the problem on any alternative form of governo-economics. It is crony agency driven - part of social engineering.

We are seeing the 'blame the game' effects yes, so I do 'blame the game'. It is failing. Right now I pay 66% of my income to mandatory collectivist activities. I further observe that 85% of our wealth as a nation is hoarded into the hands of Cronies - and this is increasing. I cannot get capital to grow my mercy and green energy based businesses - because if you get a good idea - the Cronies want it for themselves (a form of philosophy's 'Relegation Error'). This is what is defined as socialism - this is what is causing our suffering. The key is this:

If I place a dollar into the taxation cycle - 65% of it never benefits its intended purpose and the velocity of money reduces to 1x (bad thing)
If I place a dollar into the wealth cycle - 90% of it never benefits anyone but the royalty holder, 10% is given to ease suffering and tender appearances of virtue (it builds for them a natural 'screaming shield' defense in the poor - they hold the poor hostage to keep their power), and the velocity of money plummets to less than 1x (social collapse)
If on the other hand, I place a dollar into the capitalization cycle - only 12% of it never benefits its intended purpose and the velocity of money rises to 6 - 8x (everyone wins - including and especially the poor)

I sent a letter to principals in three countries last night, outlining emergency food trade and shipments through my market to those countries, because they have lost a portion of their Sovereign backing, for not toeing the line politically to a bully empire who supports them. They are all heavily socialist countries - and they are on the brink of social collapse and starvation. All three countries are characterized by heavy Cronyism, 100% wealth and no money, and 90% collectivist practices. Misery abounds. They exist on the right hand side of this chart. So yes - I blame the game.

Cronyism is the gateway drug to socialism. And while collectivism is a necessary counter to pure individualism, and there must be some wealth - when these are driven to the extreme, they serve to destroy and foment suffering. The case histories are well over 100 on this.

View attachment 1130
I definitely hear you... I was actually thinking of it more in terms of folks like Conner who gets suckered into the lose-lose game of collectivism because they don't think the other game is winnable.
 
#87
I think Conner said a mouthful in the third person with this: "I’m aligning myself with beings that want to undo love and compassion in the world and I’ve done that intentionally, and freedom and free will, and I’ve done that intentionally." Of course firstly this means one must be willing to acknowledge the existence of such beings. In aligning oneself with such beings. A (lucky) person might soon ask him or herself, "How has it come to this for me?" As they realize at some point how inhumane, (evil) they have become. Correcting the situation for themselves will require a sincere renunciation of their present path and an earnest desire to be healed of their insanity. Such a person may at this point turn to God and learn it is not in vain. God can and will act to free His child.
yes, this is what I love about Conner... his truth-seeker Warrior Spirit lives beneath all those layers neoliberal b******* :)
 
#88
If the truth ever be known, probably the biggest conspiracy in world history was the European aristocratic reaction to the spread of American-style democracy - the Theory of Evolution (no, I am not religious).

The American system was, in part, more successful than others because an allowance for our human nature, our natural self-interest, was made in the founding documents - late 18th Century. But the same documents also spelled out human rights that were "inalienable" and were the same for everyone by nature i.e. that were not based on the biological heritability of family wealth. This was close to the traditional concept of “Natural Law”.

This was seen as an existential threat to European Aristocracy, especially after the democratic revolution in France and the Revolutions of 1848 threatened to topple established, biologically heritable, aristocrat regimes all over Europe.

Darwin’s theory, expressed as “Survival of the Fittest [because the Fit Survive]” is a meaningless repetitive statement pretending to be a scientific “Natural Law” that upholds the biological heritability of family wealth, aristocratic and plutocratic rule i.e. the “Fittest”.

Our most prevalent belief, survival-of-the fittest Social Darwinism, is now taken as a given in American life, but it hasn't always been this way. Evolution and Social Darwinist-style Capitalism are inter-related ideas that were later arrivals - late 19th Century.

This kind of Capitalism and Evolution were pushed by friends of Darwin (who was one of the richest people in Europe) by his other American robber baron business tycoon buddies, to get Americans to accept the rule of European-style hereditary wealth.

Long Story Short -

Chas. Darwin's Servant: "There's a revolution! There's a crowd with torches and pitchforks outside demanding democracy! They say the Americans have declared that we are all equal by nature!"

Chas. Darwin: "Don't worry, I've just invented Evolution! It's a theory I've written that states that we're all unequal by nature!"

Convenient timing.
awesome. Love it.
 
#90
Hi Eric I appreciate your multi-dimensional multi-level approach to this... refreshing. so, my push back is just to explore different facets of the gemstone.
[QUOTE do you think do you think="Eric Newhill, post: 127741, member: 4146"]
Humanity evolves by putting its ideologies, it's ways of life, to the fitness test.
maybe but it seems to me we have some complicated variables. I've always enjoyed hardcore history... the podcast... one of my takeaways is that Fortune / luck / Providence can play huge role in some of these turning points: a battle is won or lost by the weather; Kubla Khan dies and therefore all his Marauders are ordered to return the edges of Europe which they've essentially conquered, and on and on. it's another version of the myth of progress thing and the history is written by the winners thing. I guess I'm saying I'm a little bit hesitant reading too much into the stories we tell ourselves about our Fitness / survivability.



this is the multi-dimensional / non-overlapping-universes part. seems to me that morality is a personal thing and difficult to scale up. I don't understand "God needs our help" politics.[/QUOTE]

Hi Alex,
Sure, capricious events alter the short term to, perhaps, mid-term history, but, long term you have to go with the odds - and the better way has the better odds. Please don't think that my outlook is some congratulatory pat on the back. I'm not a big fan of Christianity as a spiritual system. However, I have to admit that it's clear that elements of its message are better fit to developing organized, relatively peaceful, societies that still manage to balance in respect for the individual and codified individual rights. Something about it allowed the enlightenment to arise while maintaining the golden rule and other key values. Some how Christian societies were able to innovate and adapt to the changes the innovations caused. This is unique. Many societies have failed to adapt and have become extremely dysfunctional and the people lost; that despite efforts to bring them along. It's like they just can't get it. That's powerful stuff and its success can't be denied - though social science and the usual "spiritual" types, believing that all people are the same and making excuses rather than accept the obvious challenges to their beliefs, concoct various conspiracy theories to explain the massive failures of entire continents to come into the modern era.

Attila the Hun's modern equivalents are found in biker gangs and ISIS; fringe elements that can't do diddly to conquer much more than a street corner or two. They are a failed way of life in the societal petri dish.

I'm not a big fan of "values" either because, as you say, they are personal, IMO - though that is more recent development, the ability to pick and chose. They are even dangerous because humans have a curious habit of believing that their values are universal and anyone not holding them is evil. On the other hand I'm not a big fan of no values either. Pre-western civ values had roots in survival. Now, not so much. There's billions of us and we have life support technology that isn't going away. If AIDS/HIV had followed the worst predictions, then values against homosexuality would have had meaning. If not for welfare, then pro-hard work values would still be in high esteem. People can get all virtuous about not killing animals and being vegetarian because in our modern world you can get fresh grains, fruits and vegetables from all over the world year round (western civ brought us that - Africans and Afghanis still don't have it). When there were fewer people and the death of children was common, abortion would have been a massive sin. Now it's a virtue. Once motherhood was sacred. Now it's look upon as slavery and a woman that just wants to stay home and take of her children is seen as a loser.

But still you need to draw the line somewhere. Any man who hits a woman or harms a child in front of me will have a very bad day. I chose to be that way because it feels right to me. All you can do is live in accordance with your nature. Don't lie. Don't copy others. Be who you are and be the best you can be. But be sure that you really know who/what that is. You'll never know until tested. Then you'll know your values. Not preaching. Only explaining my personal perspective, being a newbie and all.
 
Last edited:
#91
The bottom line is...

1. When Extraction get onerous, people suffer.
a. Socialism is simply a period of Comprehensive Extraction and Confiscation of Wealth (it is not actually an economy nor theory of economics)b. The wealth falls into an elite 1% hands, ANY TIME the Capital Cycle is removedc. This period can sustain itself if the country produces wealth out of its natural resources, above a critical ratio to its Money Supply.d. This period can sustain itself if the country's currency is indexed to that of a stronger nation's currency - and the population functions on currency alone (a form of enslavement, eg. Bolivia, Cuba, Guinea, etc.)1.c and 1.d above are called Monism.

2. There is no such thing as a 'Capital Free' economy
a. If M3 and M4 Capital is removed, drugs, sex, slavery, crime, mafia, religious institutions (which is why Islam and Socialism are silent partners), laundering and food-medicine-water barters become the defacto capital exchange (they are the only things of value which remain).b. Once the Capital Cycle is removed - Extraction falls to ZERO and the economy collapses.3. A resource-rich Monist country can SKR wrap its in-ground ready wealth and create more Extraction to survive artificially - however its people will suffer as a result, because they hold no capital cycle from which to benefit from this charade. Unless the in-ground Wealth is extaordinary (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, etc.)

4. A Monist nation therefore MUST remove all civil strengths (capital, rights, guns, organizations, media, etc) and additionally, tender appearances of 'helping the poor' in order to maintain civil control.

5. The government of a Monist nation therefore, becomes its most valuable asset and must be protected at ALL costs. That includes nuclear weapons and the holding hostage of its own people. This latter is called a 'Screaming Shield' effect. You cannot dethrone my government because 'what will the poor do?' (Venezuela) - or even worse....

...my government is so important now, that I am willing to not only sacrifice my people, but exterminate most of global humanity as well, in order to protect it (Modern day Iran, The Third Reich, post WWII Soviet Union, for example....)

This is the Problem of Collective Socialization - its inevitable outcome is War (with a capital W).
I'm somewhat timorous in writing this as you obviously are vastly more knowledgeable on the subject than myself, but I'll give it a go anyway... he who dares..... (well, often falls off his horse).

Anyway, I fail to see how capitalism can lead to anything other than cronyism unless you have severe limits on the accumulation of personal wealth (at the absolute top-end) and (or?) hard-ass competition law with a chainsaw wielding regulator to back it up. And while competition law fits with some free-market theories, it's still government playing a shaping role in the economy (never mind the personal taxation side of things).

I also reckon the government playing a role in a mixed-economy / social-democratic style setup can be very beneficial for keeping the wheels of an economy turning. First, it has the ability to take capital out of the wealth cycle and re-inject as demand via social assistance programs, infrastructure builds, and general public spending - thus also having the ability to cushion the effects of market failures and dislocations. Then there's the ability of public spending / borrowing to step in and keep demand growing (sensibly, obviously) when the central bank has to knock the wind out of a bubble by hiking interest rates or some such other constriction of credit driven demand takes place.

Wouldn't all of the above count as 'socialist' measures?

So, I dunno, but this kind of mixed economy has been successful in the past, certainly more successful than the current situation.

And does socialism cause war? Well, maybe, but then the same could be said for mercantilism and it's worth remembering that Britain in its free-trade period had a nasty habit of sending in the soldiers to open-up markets (abroad and at home).

Of course, none of this is an attempt to stick-up for Venezuela, etc. Still, I must at least give credit for a temporary amelioration of poverty, which is more than previous crony regimes in Venezuela have managed or been inclined to attempt. That being said, turning away international aid for 'national pride' is sick and evidence of a full stomach.

As for the socialism negatively correlated to happiness graph - I suppose it's also worth keeping in mind that Monarchist Bhutan and a few sand and bush-pig based island economies also rank very highly on the happiness scale. Is there a correlation between Kings, coconuts and happiness? We must find out.

Besides, Scandinavian countries with their Scandi Social Democratic models always rank highly - they being a wonderful mix of free-markets, social assistance, and private and public ownership.
 
Last edited:
#92
I think ultimately socialism ends up with us all being run by a clique of extremely powerful individuals who can pull all the strings.

I think capitalism might work a lot better with very strong simple rules, and an unshakeable law that if a well off person breaks those rules, he spends a minimum of 10 years behind bars is the most unpleasant jail available (I hear they do vary a lot).

Advocates for socialism always dismiss the horrible real-world consequences by explaining that the case in question wasn't real socialism, but they are advocating true socialism!

The real problem is that both systems crumble in almost identical ways into a clique of individuals using everyone else to make wealth for themselves.

David
 
#93
I think ultimately socialism ends up with us all being run by a clique of extremely powerful individuals who can pull all the strings.

I think capitalism might work a lot better with very strong simple rules, and an unshakeable law that if a well off person breaks those rules, he spends a minimum of 10 years behind bars is the most unpleasant jail available (I hear they do vary a lot).

Advocates for socialism always dismiss the horrible real-world consequences by explaining that the case in question wasn't real socialism, but they are advocating true socialism!

The real problem is that both systems crumble in almost identical ways into a clique of individuals using everyone else to make wealth for themselves.

David
i think that's what the Ethical Skeptic calls Cronyism.
 
#94
... I'm not a big fan of Christianity as a spiritual system. However, I have to admit that it's clear that elements of its message are better fit to developing organized, relatively peaceful, societies that still manage to balance in respect for the individual and codified individual rights.
great point... it's a follow the data kinda thing :) and it's not a bust as a spiritual system either.... many awesome spiritual giants have come thru the tradition.

You'll never know until tested. Then you'll know your values.
:)
 
#95
Anyway, I fail to see how capitalism can lead to anything other than cronyism unless you have severe limits on the accumulation of personal wealth (at the absolute top-end) and (or?) hard-ass competition law with a chainsaw wielding regulator to back it up. And while competition law fits with some free-market theories, it's still government playing a shaping role in the economy (never mind the personal taxation side of things).

I also reckon the government playing a role in a mixed-economy / social-democratic style setup can be very beneficial for keeping the wheels of an economy turning. First, it has the ability to take capital out of the wealth cycle and re-inject as demand via social assistance programs, infrastructure builds, and general public spending - thus also having the ability to cushion the effects of market failures and dislocations. Then there's the ability of public spending / borrowing to step in and keep demand growing (sensibly, obviously) when the central bank has to knock the wind out of a bubble by hiking interest rates or some such other constriction of credit driven demand takes place.

Wouldn't all of the above count as 'socialist' measures?

So, I dunno, but this kind of mixed economy has been successful in the past, certainly more successful than the current situation.

And does socialism cause war? Well, maybe, but then the same could be said for mercantilism and it's worth remembering that Britain in its free-trade period had a nasty habit of sending in the soldiers to open-up markets (abroad and at home).

Of course, none of this is an attempt to stick-up for Venezuela, etc. Still, I must at least give credit for a temporary amelioration of poverty, which is more than previous crony regimes in Venezuela have managed or been inclined to attempt. That being said, turning away international aid for 'national pride' is sick and evidence of a full stomach.

As for the socialism negatively correlated to happiness graph - I suppose it's also worth keeping in mind that Monarchist Bhutan and a few sand and bush-pig based island economies also rank very highly on the happiness scale. Is there a correlation between Kings, coconuts and happiness? We must find out.

Besides, Scandinavian countries with their Scandi Social Democratic models always rank highly - they being a wonderful mix of free-markets, social assistance, and private and public ownership.
Philosophers are not allowed to pretend as scientists, nor tender scientific answers in lieu of science. For in doing so, they have, rather than played the role of philosophy, instead usurped science and taken over. As a philosopher, I am not allowed to tender nor enforce conclusions on behalf of science. When a social skeptic tells you that your ideas/research inquiries or doubts are 'pseudoscience' or 'anti-science' or 'woo' - they are pretending to be scientists. Foisting conclusions on behalf of science. Philosophers can however, bound, shape the direction of, and intervene when science has morphed into becoming mankind's greatest enemy (killing 40% of the planet's insects with pesticides, nuclear weapons, skyrocketing diseases, etc.). So philosophy, and more importantly stakeholdership does have an authoritative role in that regard.

In this same way, it is not the job of the government to direct and execute business (as in a socialist context), rather to intervene when business has run amok and is in the process of becoming mankind's greatest enemy. Yes, after my 150+ strategies with the BEST US corporations, I can see that the success I helped foster in small part was used to create monist control, and extraction wealth for Cronies. There is no doubt of that. In one case, a client was putting all its mom and pop competitors out of business - through predatory price leveraging. I told them that this violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and then drew the line, to where I believed that predatory losses on core products, done solely to kill competitors and lock up the industry vertical - were possibly illegal. They did not listen - and we parted ways. This profit from predatory pricing market control, was routed offshore to trust accounts drawing from their Wall Street equity base. The profits were not used to hire new employees or create innovation nor improve the benefits package offered to wage earners. This is a process called Extraction-Sequestering. The money was NOT REINVESTED. This company was slammed with a rather large Anti-Trust action by the government later.

Is Cronyism the inevitable outcome of Capitalism? No. Cronyism is the inevitable outcome of unbounded Extraction. When the government and elites write laws which allow themselves to take as much profit out of a corporation or family as they prefer - this is Unbounded Extraction - and creates this self-reinforcing spiral:

1 - a government which believes it is talented and virtuous enough that it should usurp and be put in charge of most everything - and therefore must extract as much as possible in order to pay for that 'everything'. They charge $3 to do $1 worth of value in this role.​
2 - an elite class, competing with government who must extract as much as possible, and remove it into offshore trusts which are protected from government extraction. These offshore trusts bear an added feature in that they can create MORE profit than can the company from which the money was stolen in the first place. Such a deal!​
3 - all of this arrives via push from Wall Street to improve the the 'efficiency' and 'productivity' of the corporation (mergers and consolidations until only 1 - 3 companies are left standing) - which means that middle income wage earners are removed from the economy - and the ranks of the poor increase. It is at this point the resemblance with socialized infrastructure begins to emerge (curiously)...​

This last condition is then invoked to justify #1 above and the cycle repeats.

Haspel’s Paradox – a suppressed idea mutates to ever more virulent forms, these are then invoked to justify its continued suppression.​
The United States is in a Haspel Spiral right now - directed by government and corporate leaders who do not grasp the above, and must substitute mandates of 'virtue' and 'efficiency' (replete with all the correct buzzwords) to stand in for the competence they lack.​

The job of the government is to bound the function of business and help cultivate a fertile ground for its thriving, yet still refuse to usurp its role. Very much like ethical skepticism is a new view of the role of philosophy... if you are harmed/can be harmed as the stakeholder in a new science/technology - you are the new peer review.

This philosophical bounding, in no way constitutes pervasive Collectivism, nor does it foster excessive Extraction. :)
 
Last edited:
#96
Wouldn't all of the above count as 'socialist' measures?
No. :)

One of the curious things you might note from the yellow chart I assembled above, is that the happiest nations on the planet ARE INDEED part socialist. I would rather call this collectivist. 20% of those national economic practices (or let's say GDP?) were collectivist in nature. This would equate to say a 23% tax rate, given the efficient administration of those collectivist governances... (no bloated bureaucracies)

So infrastructure, defense, social assistance exist in every country - those things do not require socialism per se.

In fact, in one national strategy I directed - that 23% is exactly the tax rate I recommended to the nation on primary earnings (amazingly, the Chinese Triads take 20% of earnings... I find that surprising). The priority being basic 250 SKU medical clinics, clean water, grade 3 - 7 schools, trade schools, 4th tier food distribution, etc. They had NONE of this.

The Socialist Cronies banded together to oppose that set of recommendations, because they were taxing 100% of the production earnings - and did not want to lose that gravy train. They were throwing fits in their elaborate palaces and mosques and citing the 'money they gave to the poor'. They even tried to have me killed.

So, you see that Socialism is using a plumber to build the entire house. Collectivism as 100% panacea, rather than a 20% tool.

When government Extraction surpasses it Value/Role, then Capital Holders respond by increasing their Extraction as well above their Value/Role - the two then merge into one Mafia - and long term suffering ensues. Violence (internal militarization - guns pointed at its own people) becomes its chief trade (and eventually export).
 
Last edited:
#97
As for the socialism negatively correlated to happiness graph - I suppose it's also worth keeping in mind that Monarchist Bhutan and a few sand and bush-pig based island economies also rank very highly on the happiness scale. Is there a correlation between Kings, coconuts and happiness? We must find out.

Besides, Scandinavian countries with their Scandi Social Democratic models always rank highly - they being a wonderful mix of free-markets, social assistance, and private and public ownership.
You have to remember that Sweden exports $420 billion in oil per year, for a population of about 10 million people.
Norway exports $220 billion in crude and refined, for a population of 6 million people.

PeeWee Herman could govern those countries via PeeWeeism, where everyone was required to run in the streets laughing goofily for 4 hours each day - and that would be a success.

Small Fifedoms are not 'nations' per se - they are actually corporations...... enough said there.... :) That is why the 13 Colonies, before they turned into official territories of the Crown were called 'Companies'.
 
#98
Philosophers are not allowed to pretend as scientists, nor tender scientific answers in lieu of science. For in doing so, they have, rather than played the role of philosophy, instead usurped science and taken over. As a philosopher, I am not allowed to tender nor enforce conclusions on behalf of science. When a social skeptic tells you that your ideas/research inquiries or doubts are 'pseudoscience' or 'anti-science' or 'woo' - they are pretending to be scientists. Foisting conclusions on behalf of science. Philosophers can however, bound, shape the direction of, and intervene when science has morphed into becoming mankind's greatest enemy (killing 40% of the planet's insects with pesticides, nuclear weapons, skyrocketing diseases, etc.). So philosophy, and more importantly stakeholdership does have an authoritative role in that regard.

In this same way, it is not the job of the government to direct and execute business (as in a socialist context), rather to intervene when business has run amok and is in the process of becoming mankind's greatest enemy. Yes, after my 150+ strategies with the BEST US corporations, I can see that the success I helped foster in small part was used to create monist control, and extraction wealth for Cronies. There is no doubt of that. In one case, a client was putting all its mom and pop competitors out of business - through predatory price leveraging. I told them that this violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and then drew the line, to where I believed that predatory losses on core products, done solely to kill competitors and lock up the industry vertical - were possibly illegal. They did not listen - and we parted ways. This profit from predatory pricing market control, was routed offshore to trust accounts drawing from their Wall Street equity base. The profits were not used to hire new employees or create innovation nor improve the benefits package offered to wage earners. This is a process called Extraction-Sequestering. The money was NOT REINVESTED. This company was slammed with a rather large Anti-Trust action by the government later.

Is Cronyism the inevitable outcome of Capitalism? No. Cronyism is the inevitable outcome of unbounded Extraction. When the government and elites write laws which allow themselves to take as much profit out of a corporation or family as they prefer - this is Unbounded Extraction - and creates this self-reinforcing spiral:

1 - a government which believes it is talented and virtuous enough that it should usurp and be put in charge of most everything - and therefore must extract as much as possible in order to pay for that 'everything'.​
2 - an elite class, competing with government who must extract as much as possible, and remove it into offshore trusts which are protected from government extraction. These offshore trusts bear an added feature in that they can create MORE profit than can the company from which the money was stolen in the first place. Such a deal!​
3 - all of this arrives via push from Wall Street to improve the the 'efficiency' and 'productivity' of the corporation (mergers and consolidations until only 1 - 3 companies are left standing) - which means that middle income wage earners are removed from the economy - and the ranks of the poor increase. It is at this point the resemblance with socialized infrastructure begins to emerge (curiously)...​

This last condition is then invoked to justify #1 above and the cycle repeats.

Haspel’s Paradox – a suppressed idea mutates to ever more virulent forms, these are then invoked to justify its continued suppression.​
The United States is in a Haspel Spiral right now - directed by government and corporate leaders who do not grasp the above, and must substitute mandates of 'virtue' and 'efficiency' (replete with all the correct buzzwords) to stand in for the competence they lack.​

The job of the government is to bound the function of business and help cultivate a fertile ground for its thriving, yet still refuse to usurp its role. Very much like ethical skepticism is a new view of the role of philosophy... if you are harmed/can be harmed as the stakeholder in a new science/technology - you are the new peer review.

This philosophical bounding, in no way constitutes pervasive Collectivism, nor does it foster excessive Extraction. :)
ES,
I think you're over-complicating matters.

Even I think the govt should step in and nudge situations in the right direction- albeit as lightly as possible - when there are true market failures. I prefer the govt introducing incentives into the market, but accept that sometimes it is necessary to go as far as criminal penalties.

A true market failure is when free markets, by their own internal logic, are no longer free or fair. Examples are:
1. Markets failing to form (see Medicare. A private company won't offer healthcare insurance to the elderly b/c the elderly will for sure have medical claims and lots of them and they will be expensive; all relative to the < 65 working population. The actuarially correct premium would have to be so high that seniors, most who don't even work, couldn't afford to pay it.)
2. Natural monopolies (emphasis on "natural") - anti-trust laws are appropriate
3. Asymmetry of information - Where by virtue of the nature of interaction one player has knows more about the situation than the other and has the opportunity to mislead or commit fraud.
4. Principal/agent problem - often similar to asymmetry of information. The principal has contracted with an agent and the agent has incentives to act in his own interest and contrary to the principals.
5. Externalities - Especially negative ones wherein the profit maximizing (or cost saving) activities of one party confers costs on unrelated third parties (a company that finds it cheaper and easier to dump wastes in a body of water that fishermen use to harvest fish and gain a living. the toxins further harm consumers of the fish).

As I see it, socialists declare all of capitalism rampantly rife with all of the above and then wish to come in with a sledge hammer and destroy the entire system. Wisdom must be applied. If an idiot can't understand what a reasonable person should, that, for example, is not asymmetry of information. You must be careful about identifying market failures. That said, they do happen and that is a legitimate opening for govt to step in - again, as lightly as possible; not like Godzilla.
 
#99
ES,
I think you're over-complicating matters.
I disagree - a Haspel Spiral is as straightforward as it gets for a strategist. And actually it is usable as hypotheisis inside an infrastructure strategy (where one models flows of value, wealth utilization and extraction). While I agree with your points 1 - 5 as intellectual arguments - I could never advise a government based upon those sets of specialized cases.
 
I disagree - a Haspel Spiral is as straightforward as it gets for a strategist. And actually it is usable as hypotheisis inside an infrastructure strategy (where one models flows of value, wealth utilization and extraction). While I agree with your points 1 - 5 as intellectual arguments - I could never advise a government based upon those sets of specialized cases.
ES,
I see what you work on and where you're coming from. Are you a GS or a contractor?
 
Top