So I Recently Read Animal Farm Again

a reply to: PublicOpinion

There would be no farm to begin with without the brain and imagination of the farmer. The farmer is the entrepreneur who has the vision to see how all the parts could make a productive whole and something greater.

Societies cannot form at all without that element.

Collectivism arises out of the envy of others who can produce a part but cannot grasp how it might be connected into a greater whole.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Because the subject of “Wealth Inequality” is propaganda that the rich only provide for themselves at the absolute expense of others. Maybe reread the death of Boxer and how the pigs sold him to be turned to glue and bought whiskey for themselves.

But the Soak the Rich tax schemes in play will either fall on the idle rich which can leave to avoid them (like the cat) or Entrepreneurs who can be destroyed by disproportionate taxation and regulations to the point of either offshoring or closure. Bill Clinton’s success was random coincidence of the dot com boom. And subsequent bust at the end of tenure. One of his last acts was to release from the strategic oil reserve to bottom out gas prices. The natural rebound was “W. helping his oil buddies.”

But Minimum Wage increases helps with Wealth Inequality. Not in the least. How many ticket takers do you see in a movie theater at the top of the ramp since the last jump to $7.25? Elevator Operators outside of NYC? How about thriving shopping malls filled with stores and workers?

a reply to: ketsuko

Why are the farmers in my neck of the woods on strike if it's about this imagined beast of collectivism ripping us off, and not about crony capitalism and it's destructive consequences?

You're pretty good with points that look great on paper! And? How is the entrepreneur formerly known as Monsanto achieving something greater now, and not merely greater profits for it's shareholders? Greater numbers of dead insects maybe? Dead Birds?

Is this even happening?

a reply to: Ahabstar

Because the subject of “Wealth Inequality” is propaganda that the rich only provide for themselves at the absolute expense of others.

And where would we find the data to substantiate your point with?

Noblesse obliges, eh? Cool. Dope concept.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Because not all wealth is generationally granted from a long line of self proclaimers. Nor is it all unethically acquired by trading with insider information under exemptions from that law.

Would you begrudge a poker player that lady fortune smiled upon?
How about the kid that laid out the premise for Angry Birds which his father then coded?
Suppose you bought a lottery ticket that won? Are you only accepting 1/330 millionth so that all may have a share, after paying all the taxes of course?

Should you be entitled to any windfalls of a business without suffering the losses or even sacrifice in the building up of the business?

a reply to: Ahabstar

a reply to: Ahabstar

They're just humans as well? And making a God out of your 7 demons doesn't really turn out so glorious in the end. Does it?
Why should I lay such a heavy burden on a single one of them if I am fully aware that this wont work?

a reply to: Ahabstar

I'm a huge fan of the book. I think what it teaches is more important than 1984.

I don't think it's helpful to try to assign the roles of the different animals to people living today.

I believe Orwell's message in Animal Farm was that most, if not all, countries today are being managed like farms geared to using their resources for maximum profit and efficiency. The people of those countries, like the animals in the farm, are a resource to be exploited. The ideological wars between capitalism, communism, socialism, democracy, and other forms of government are really about how best to get the maximum output from the people with minimum cost.

The old farmer was ousted by the animals because he was useless and not managing the farm for maximum profit. He represents monarchies and dictatorships. Those forms of government may start off well, but human nature being what it is means they will always decay from corruption at the top. When the old farmer was removed from the farm, it worried the other farmers in the area. Could this happen to them?

The pigs represented the more intelligent people of a nation when they have no empathy for their fellow citizens. Inevitably, they use their intelligence and education to exploit others. As they take control of a nation, they promise prosperity for the people, but they say that everyone needs to make sacrifices for this utopia to happen. Somehow, those sacrifices never seem to apply to the ruling class.

Snowball was the ultimate boogieman. After he was driven away from the farm, he was never seen again. But whenever things went wrong, Snowball was blamed. He was the enemy in the shadows, a rallying point for whenever the pigs needed to take focus off of themselves. Every government needs one.

There's so much more I want to talk about. The windmill, Boxer, the Dogs, the Laws, etc.

The most telling part is the end, when the animals looked through the window to see the pigs living just as the old farmer had. They had sacrificed as they had been asked to, but they never got the utopia they were promised. Their lives were no better, and in many cases worse. But the farm was more profitable than ever and the pigs reaped the rewards.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Well, for one, Clinton was always a Democratic Party member.

Trump was a true turncoat - Republican, Democrat, Independent and then Republican again.

Also, look at how he threw Mannafort and Cohen under the bus (and the others who he had told they'd receive a Presidential pardon).

Who is flip-flopping loyalties?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Points that look great on paper? That's all socialism and communism are -- points that look great on paper.

The chef is the one who takes ingredients and makes them into a great dish. Can you take a celeriac and make it taste awesome?

However, in order to feed a room full of people his awesome dish, the chef needs a bunch of staff. None of these people could manage to make the celeriac palatable, let alone something people will pay top dollar to eat like the chef can. All they have are the necessary skills to help him assemble the dish for the people in the room.

Why do they deserve to be paid on par with the chef? Without the chef, there is no dish. Without the dish, there is no restaurant and no reason for any of them to be there working in the first place.

All of business works like this - including the farm.

a reply to: ketsuko

Look into inherited wealth and the impact of stock buybacks on the GDP. You may end up with a different perspective. Maybe even with one that actually doesn't try to justify absurd amounts of wealth inequality in every single conversation we have.

You're a tad obsessed with this whole notion that communism isn't a form of capitalism as well, right? What if it works better if we can keep the Stalinism out of it? And frankly, does it even matter? We're in a constant state of war on everything already, is there really so much of a difference between drone warfare and guillotines?

Are we even able to think beyond such terms at this point? Is there a way for us to talk about this poetic utopia without going through all those repetitive tangents?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Communism would only work in the way you suggest if it were 100% voluntary for everyone at all levels, but it would never be that, not with government involved in it.

Not only that, but once you start serious scaling, there has to be those who are tasked with making sure everything is equally apportioned to all. Those people must be 100% incorruptible. After all, they get to sort who gets what and when, including to themselves. The temptation to skim and keep more and better or delegate more and better to the favored is always there. It only takes a few corrupted individuals to bring about the downfall of the system because such corruption is contagious once lack of trust spreads. Then everyone is keeping what they can for themselves as everyone knows it's not fair anymore.

And a broad compelled system has no escape for anyone.

a reply to: ketsuko

Communism would only work in the way you suggest if it were 100% voluntary for everyone at all levels, but it would never be that, not with government involved in it.

I don't disagree with you. But what if we could have a real representation the way gubmints are intended? I'm talking about us being involved, 100% voluntary. There's no way Big Corporate will comply with direct-democratic votes if we can't make the stockholders do so. Right?

Not only that, but once you start serious scaling, there has to be those who are tasked with making sure everything is equally apportioned to all. Those people must be 100% incorruptible.

No. Those people don't even have to be people anymore. This is the 4th ind. revolution with the internetz at our disposal! What if we compartmentalize the process, and use algos or AI for quality control to circumvent corruption?

Why bother pretending to be incorruptible in the first place? Let's try not to repeat more mistakes while we're at it, shant we?

a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton, yes. Hillary was a Republican until Nixon won the 1968 nomination. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Her parents remained Republicans as well. Reagan was also a Democrat until the 1960’s “when the party left him” opposing civil rights and increasing the embrace of Progressive Socialism.

Bloomberg was a RINO following under Giuliani. He also ignored the actual rules on two terms for the mayor and took a third one as a named Independent, before finally registering as a Democrat. I did a thread last year on notable party flippers but left Bloomberg off the list.

a reply to: ketsuko

Most of us don’t even like milk and apples. We have it because we have to because it is brain food that helps us work better tending to the details.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton, yes. Hillary was a Republican until Nixon won the 1968 nomination. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Her parents remained Republicans as well. Reagan was also a Democrat until the 1960’s “when the party left him” opposing civil rights and increasing the embrace of Progressive Socialism.

Bloomberg was a RINO following under Giuliani. He also ignored the actual rules on two terms for the mayor and took a third one as a named Independent, before finally registering as a Democrat. I did a thread last year on notable party flippers but left Bloomberg off the list.

So, Hillary left the Republicans in the 1960's, back when she was in college, and has been Dem ever since then. Trump's flip-flopping is far more recent and vacillating.

Trump did not flip-flop, that would be back and forth.

Trump maintains the same stance on most issues it is the democrat party that has changed from the 80's to now.
In fact the democrat party of the 80's is closer to the Republican party of today.
Also, Trump is not an establishment Republican, he blew them all out of the water in the Republican primary and in many ways has changed the party.
Most independents like what Trump is doing, to me that is a good metric to go by...not party hacks.

You may already know this, I'm not sure so I thought I would clarify.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton, yes. Hillary was a Republican until Nixon won the 1968 nomination. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Her parents remained Republicans as well. Reagan was also a Democrat until the 1960’s “when the party left him” opposing civil rights and increasing the embrace of Progressive Socialism.

Bloomberg was a RINO following under Giuliani. He also ignored the actual rules on two terms for the mayor and took a third one as a named Independent, before finally registering as a Democrat. I did a thread last year on notable party flippers but left Bloomberg off the list.

So, Hillary left the Republicans in the 1960's, back when she was in college, and has been Dem ever since then. Trump's flip-flopping is far more recent and vacillating.

a reply to: chr0naut

So was Warren’s flip, in college, as a professor.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Trump did not flip-flop, that would be back and forth.

Trump maintains the same stance on most issues it is the democrat party that has changed from the 80's to now.
In fact the democrat party of the 80's is closer to the Republican party of today.
Also, Trump is not an establishment Republican, he blew them all out of the water in the Republican primary and in many ways has changed the party.
Most independents like what Trump is doing, to me that is a good metric to go by...not party hacks.

You may already know this, I'm not sure so I thought I would clarify.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton, yes. Hillary was a Republican until Nixon won the 1968 nomination. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Her parents remained Republicans as well. Reagan was also a Democrat until the 1960’s “when the party left him” opposing civil rights and increasing the embrace of Progressive Socialism.

Bloomberg was a RINO following under Giuliani. He also ignored the actual rules on two terms for the mayor and took a third one as a named Independent, before finally registering as a Democrat. I did a thread last year on notable party flippers but left Bloomberg off the list.

So, Hillary left the Republicans in the 1960's, back when she was in college, and has been Dem ever since then. Trump's flip-flopping is far more recent and vacillating.

How is the Cool-Aid?

your too young and from a different part of the world I guess.
Some of us have been living through all of this, you know, before google and the .com bubble.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Trump did not flip-flop, that would be back and forth.

Trump maintains the same stance on most issues it is the democrat party that has changed from the 80's to now.
In fact the democrat party of the 80's is closer to the Republican party of today.
Also, Trump is not an establishment Republican, he blew them all out of the water in the Republican primary and in many ways has changed the party.
Most independents like what Trump is doing, to me that is a good metric to go by...not party hacks.

You may already know this, I'm not sure so I thought I would clarify.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton, yes. Hillary was a Republican until Nixon won the 1968 nomination. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Her parents remained Republicans as well. Reagan was also a Democrat until the 1960’s “when the party left him” opposing civil rights and increasing the embrace of Progressive Socialism.

Bloomberg was a RINO following under Giuliani. He also ignored the actual rules on two terms for the mayor and took a third one as a named Independent, before finally registering as a Democrat. I did a thread last year on notable party flippers but left Bloomberg off the list.

So, Hillary left the Republicans in the 1960's, back when she was in college, and has been Dem ever since then. Trump's flip-flopping is far more recent and vacillating.

How is the cool aid?