The Glade 4.0

Who here has been paying attention to what has been happening with Belgium's economy?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Well I figured their economy was pretty well recession-proof:

_________________

I can't say that Belgium's economy has been a real attention-grabber, no.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Also, the fact that less government/regulation increases economic growth surprises no one, it's the other problems with small government (massive income inequality, devastating poverty, environmental destruction, etc) that people don't like.

don't we have all those things anyway, even in countries with totalitarian governments like Cuba and China?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I think the point is that 'big government' CAN be used to fight those things--not that the it necessarily follows that 'big governments' do fight those things, its just that they CAN. (or think they can)

Why would we want to fight "income inequality" at all? I hear this term all the time. We spent 45 years or so after then end of WWII defending ourselves against a system that was based on (theoretically) the idea of income equality.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Um, so that we don't end up like that country? Crushing income, lack of opportunity, and a huge disparity of income and wealth is what led to the Russian Revolution.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

That's exactly what I'm talking about. An increased controlled market government wasn't fixing those problems either. Personally I don't think you can eliminate income disparity, unless you force everyone to have less, more likely nothing. All you can do is make it so that people have the opportunity to increase though hard work.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Aethien's talking about the Winter and October Revolutions, not Glasnost.

_________________

You seem to forget fighting a losing war to Germany for several years prior, too, and one to Japan some time before that.

In fact, let me get this straight. Despite the fact that we don't have a monarchy or hereditary nobility and despite the fact that "poverty" or lack of opportunity in this country is laughable compared to the state of Imperial Russia, we need to have a lot of government to (supposedly) address those social issues. If we don't, we'll encounter the problems of a country that (wait for it) had a big oppressive government and ended up having an even bigger, more oppressive government. That's your line of reasoning? We need big government (which social regulation is) in order to avoid the problems of a different kind of big government (which we don't have) in order to avoid.. having an even bigger, more oppressive government?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of having emergency (like, REAL short term, REAL emergency) social safety nets, some basic health, safety, and environmental regulation, and laws to prevent companies from shooting striking workers with hired goons. Problems with things like "income inequality" go far beyond that, however. Income should be unequal. That's been demonstrated. There is no reason to achieve if there's no reward for it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Poverty is a relative concept. I suspect the wealth gap between the richest people in the US and the poorest is significantly greater than the gap between the richest and poorest in the old Russian Empire. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that it's an order of magnitude greater, to be honest.

Have you ever talked to anyone from Russia or China. I as a part time minimum wage earner I live quite well compared to the average chinaman. Both countries have their luxurious livers too.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

People in poverty in the U.S. typically have large screen televisions and all with cell phones. Just saying.

Oh, no, I remember the two wars, but I also know that there were plenty of previous revolts. The war was merely a catalyst for something that probably would have happened within 10 or 15 years anyway. Of course, the outcome may have been quite different. And, you can argue that because there was an inflexible and oppressive social system and government, the Russian state was in no way qualified to meet the demands of total war in the modern era. One of the big problems was the perception that the Tsar was no longer a kindly grandfather type ("Tsar Batiushka"), and had ceased to care for the welfare of his people (whether or not that was really the case).

I almost qualified my original point when I posted, to say that your government has to be seen as making some attempt at addressing income inequality, not necessarily being successful at doing so. So, my point is not that



but that we need social regulation in order to maintain the legitimacy of the state, and not end up with a bloody revolution. My point is that to maintain the legitimacy of the government, you need to show some concern for the have-nots. Apparently, we do that today by addressing income inequality. The Romans did it by staging gladiatorial combat and providing subsidized food.

And, sure, we don't have a de jure nobility, but I would argue that there's a de facto nobility. Rich kids get into the best schools (sometimes on the strength of simply their family connections ("Legacies")), and certainly have more opportunities to make their likelihood of success much greater. (Heck, I still dont' know why Liv Tyler is given acting roles, and I've heard the same thing about Kate Hudson. It's unlikely they'd be part of our) And, you know, we have this image of "nobility" as always being hereditary, but many societies had ways of allowing people to become "noble", through service to the ruler, performance on the battlefield, etc. Of course, we've had this discussion before, I'm sure.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

Except this is what you're trying to demonstrate. I'm contesting precisely this; I do not see that we need social regulation, or that it has anything to do with maintaining the legitimacy of the state.

I do not see that we need to address "income inequality" to avoid a bloody revolution. Poverty in the absolute could lead to one, but we do not have meaningful absolute poverty in this country. "Income inequality" and other social regulation are about relative poverty, and therefore of far less merit. They simply assume that some people being richer and some poorer is problematic in and of itself, ignoring both the absolute states, and the reasons why some are rich and some are poor.



I don't see that a nobility that is not a "de jure" nobility is a nobility at all. Simply being rich is not the same thing at all. Having a nobility means social status, rights, and powers that are confirmed by birth, and which one can enter only by formal recognition into the exclusive club, which might be for genuine merit, but also might not, and is generally really hard to get anyhow. Things like good schools and certain clubs are not relevant because these are private; they do not have the legal powers of a nobility.

By contrast, anyone with a reasonable amount of desire, talent, and work ethic can achieve at least enough wealth to live comfortably without a legal nobility. Their success is based largely upon the market for what they can do. Family connections might help, but they are vastly less important in the face of the need to find the most talented people and put them to work for you if you want to succeed yourself.

More importantly, the "nobility" does not control military power. In fact, most military people come from poorer or middle class background, even the officers. The nobility does not form the "officer class". This is a tremendous difference.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In terms of what? Why would it matter anyhow? A fairly poor person in the U.S. is likely to have access to better food (assuming they choose to east smart), better medical care, and innumerable technologies that the richest Russian noble could hardly have dreamed of.

"Income inequality" is a joke. It doesn't matter what your income is relative to anyone else's; it matters how you can live on it. When you live as well as the "poor" of this country, it's pretty hard for violent revolution over income inequality to look good - especially when you're a fatass in the first place and lugging that rifle more than a hundred yards looks like awfully hard work when you could be watching Jersey Shore or some ****.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Income inequality is greater in the U.S. now than it was in the 1700s. Clearly they were all better off. /sarcasm

I have somewhat liberal opinions nowadays, but income inequality is an over-exaggerated non-issue. It doesn't matter as long as people have food, shelter, and access to healthcare. It is a terrible metric to go by. Some people are way too hung up on it.

And this is why income equality is meaningless - and thus why so many people say it matters so much.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Anybody that thinks the United States isn't ruled by an aristocracy hasn't paid attention to the political dynasties that reign over Congress. We do have a hereditary noble class, and it has nothing to do with the rich kids going to the best schools - that's actually a red herring.

What we do have here is opportunity for those who aren't members of the ruling nobility. It is possible to go from a blacksmith's apprentice to a rail baron like Jay Gould. Yes, later on, their kids do go to the best schools. The actual American nobility point bring that up in order to sow public discontent and keep the masses from realizing that the same families have been ruling them in Washington for generations.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

No, we really do not have a "ruling nobility". The only thing that keeps these "ruling dynasties" in place is the continued desire of successive generations to run for office, and their ability to get elected. More importantly, the vast majority of politicians are NOT part of any such "family business."

Anyone who thinks our country IS ruled by a hereditary aristocracy is more interested in looking clever by finding new ways to use predjudicial language than in really discussing the issues.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There's not a US nobility at all. What there is, is opportunity. Wealth greases the skids of opportunity, but it's not required.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Wealth and connections. The connections part is what gives the illusion of nobility.