Food prices

[AnalogPackrat]

You are a funny guy.



Indeed. Since we agree on this, why would you support the Reupublican party?

I support the candidates that 1) align most with my views and 2) seem likely to do less damage than the alternative. I no longer vote for candidates who have no chance (e.g., third party protest votes). As I have stated many times, I used to vote more D than R. But the Democrats have gone from supporting civil liberties and the common man to the centralized government authoritarian ("it's for your own good/safety") party of powerful coastal elites. They do not want individuals making decisions for themselves. I don't like all GOP politicians, but there are very few D politicians who pass my basic criteria anymore.

They have done everything they could, helped by billionaire donor's and ideologically charged think tank to advance an agenda for a very small minority at the very top of the food chain...

Who supported lock downs and vaccine mandates? Who benefited most from that? Which party wants to control what vehicles we drive, what appliances we can use in our homes, and what outdoor power equipment we can buy to maintain our property or use for business? Which party wants 87000 new IRS agents, more regulatory agencies, and higher taxes to fund it all? Which party thinks I should not be allowed to defend myself or my family as is my right? Which party is soft on crime while allowing millions of illegal immigrants to cross the border unhindered?

I could go on. I lived in California from age 26 until 55. I saw what happened there and who was responsible (hint: the party I used to vote for more frequently). I do not want Californication to happen where I now live.

The world is objectively very different in the social realm today, at least in western democracies. Stephen Pinker, for instance, has documented it very well in his books.

I didn't say nothing had changed, but that technological advancement has far outpaced social change in the past couple of centuries. Read what I wrote.

As has always been the case. However, underlying the cyclical ups and downs there is also a general trend of progress. At least since the enlightenment, although if you look a lot farther back, the picture becomes less clear, as David Graeberand David Wengrow argue quite convincingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything

So you agree that concentration of power is a big problem for humanity, but what is your proposed mechanism to prevent it? More government authority!? I can post pictures of books I've read, too, but what are the pragmatic and realistic ways we can improve things without ruining what is good?

 

[JohnRoberts]

The RNC and DNC are both private corporations that serve their own interests. Both are only interested in maintaining control and keeping themselves fat and wealthy. The real question is why would you support either. They certainly don't represent the voters.

Indeed, blindly supporting either party is a recipe for poor outcomes. That said it is pretty much impossible to get elected without one or the other party's support so good leaders have to figure out how to work within that system.

Sadly most of our better leaders wisely choose to avoid politics entirely to our nation's detriment.

JR

 

[jabe]

Where did I attack "your country"?

Constant negative and disparaging commentary about those who support Constitutional originality, actual liberty/individualism, or who happen to be right of your very left perspective. My country is made of its people and you cannot help but disparage a large number of us

Based on that "logic", AnalogPackrat is also constantly attacking the US, since they are constantly disparaging Americans to the left of their very right perspective -- an even larger number.
"If you disagree my personal beliefs you are atracking my entire country" is a supremely silly stance, and certainly not very pro- "actual liberty/individualism".

 

[user 37518]

I don't see why it would remind you of that. If person A believes yelling at the tv causes their sports team to win, while person B believes yelling at the tv causes their sports team to lose, which one is right?

As a tangent though that quote reminds me of some gems from Yogi Berra.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/03/the-50-greatest-yogi-berra-quotes

Yeap those quotes (great quotes BTW) definitely remind me of the one I quoted earlier.

To answer your question: Even though it is hard to tell which one is right, they can't be wrong or right at the same time; same thing applies to the Inflation Reduction Act, I guess...

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Based on that "logic", AnalogPackrat is also constantly attacking the US, since they are constantly disparaging Americans to the left of their very right perspective -- an even larger number.
"If you disagree my personal beliefs you are atracking my entire country" is a supremely silly stance, and certainly not very pro- "actual liberty/individualism".

Yes, I do disparage the bad ideas promulgated by my fellow citizens. Because I have an interest in not seeing my homeland destroyed by those ideas. That's how we prevent future problems in a free society.

The other member in question is not and never has been a citizen of the USA. He has no experience living here and yet speaks regularly about my country, it's government/Constitution, and its people as though he's an expert on all things USA when obviously is not. Big difference. He's free to critique his own government/country/people.

 

[Matador]

"If you disagree my personal beliefs you are atracking my entire country" is a supremely silly stance, and certainly not very pro- "actual liberty/individualism".

It's always instructive to see just how thin a veil covers the concept of "free speech" when someone disagrees, and becomes "MYOB".

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It's always instructive to see just how thin a veil covers the concept of "free speech" when someone disagrees, and becomes "MYOB".

Have I tried to have the admins limit anyone's posts here? No. Have I pushed to limit what people can post in The Brewery or have it shut down? No. Have I tried to use posts here to get members fired from their jobs? No. Telling someone their ignorance is showing (and providing information to back that up) is not limiting their speech or cancelling them. Nor is telling them to mind their own (country's) business.

 

[living sounds]

The RNC and DNC are both private corporations that serve their own interests. Both are only interested in maintaining control and keeping themselves fat and wealthy. The real question is why would you support either. They certainly don't represent the voters.

Like I wrote before, the Republicans are serving the interests of the 1% and Democrats the next 10%. All studies show that in the US today people in the middle or at the bottom of the food chain have next to no or zero influence on the political process respectively.

 

[living sounds]

So you agree that concentration of power is a big problem for humanity, but what is your proposed mechanism to prevent it? More government authority!?

That's the billion dollar question. In the book i linked above, it has been shown that native tribes (the most prominent examples being Native Americans) managed a stable, sustainable equilibrium by limiting themselves . It's the opposite of "greed is good" Capitalism but very different from Communism, too. a major thesis of the book is that the Enlightenment was sparked by contact between the stale western monarchies and native tribes, because seeing their way of life allowed Europeans thinkers to imagine a different system.

We're in a very different world now, and technological advances will very likely increasingly free people from all the drudgery the industrial and post-industrial economy has to offer. The plant's resources are limited, and we already use more than it can sustain. So some kind of rationing is probably inevitable. I know this may sound like Communism to you, but it might be the only viable option.

 

[living sounds]

Yes, I do disparage the bad ideas promulgated by my fellow citizens. Because I have an interest in not seeing my homeland destroyed by those ideas. That's how we prevent future problems in a free society.

The other member in question is not and never has been a citizen of the USA. He has no experience living here and yet speaks regularly about my country, it's government/Constitution, and its people as though he's an expert on all things USA when obviously is not. Big difference. He's free to critique his own government/country/people.

I'm free to write whatever I like, thank you very much.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

That's the billion dollar question. In the book i linked above, it has been shown that native tribes (the most prominent examples being Native Americans) managed a stable, sustainable equilibrium by limiting themselves .

I was wondering if you were going to address the obvious gap between the developed world's "underlying the cyclical ups and downs there is also a general trend of progress" and that of the less developed tribal nations of Australia, NZ, Pacific Islands, North America, etc. prior to contact with each other. Why did these peoples' culture not progress with the same general upward trend? It certainly wasn't for lack of resources in the case of North American natives. But now you think this lack of progress is desirable? Those of us who are older recall the various "return to nature" and more primitive ways of living movements that became popular in the 1960s and 70s. It didn't seem to pan out (for obvious reasons).

It's the opposite of "greed is good" Capitalism but very different from Communism, too.

Well, tribal organization works in smaller and lower density population situations. Are you advocating for radical population reduction? I would also point out the obvious undesirable aspects of the more developed (but still far behind Europe, Asia, and Africa) South and Central American civilzations that developed in pre-Columbian times. They were characterized by centralized authority, hierarchical organization, and slavery, sometimes with a violent religion topping it all off. Yes, they are interesting to study. I don't think emulation is a good idea.

a major thesis of the book is that the Enlightenment was sparked by contact between the stale western monarchies and native tribes, because seeing their way of life allowed Europeans thinkers to imagine a different system.

That seems like a real stretch. Hadn't those stale western monarchies already encountered less developed civilations as well as very differently advanced ones in South Asia, China, etc.? I mean Ghengis Khan and his successors "encountered" a lot of Europe centuries before Europeans "found" the Americas.

We're in a very different world now, and technological advances will very likely increasingly free people from all the drudgery the industrial and post-industrial economy has to offer.

I'm not sure everyone who works considers their job "drudgery." With what do you propose replacing the very real and human purposes (providing for self and family, a sense of accomplishment/purpose/duty) of work and career?

The plant's resources are limited, and we already use more than it can sustain.

Says who?

So some kind of rationing is probably inevitable.

You first.

I know this may sound like Communism to you, but it might be the only viable option.

According to which "experts?" There you go, more negative waves...

 

[user 37518]

I know this may sound like Communism to you, but it might be the only viable option.

Why the most radical liberals, from the most liberal, developed, democratic and wealthy countries are so enamored with communism or communist ideals is something that completely eludes me. I mean, not to point fingers, but not long ago they had to build a wall so people in your own country wouldn't flee in droves from the communist side to the American side; and now somehow communism is great or the only viable option? I sincerely don't get it...

 

[cyrano]

We're still shooting the messenger...

It doesn't matter which side an idea comes from. It's the idea itself that should be evaluated, not the messenger.

And with most Americans, as soon as it even smells of communism, they stop evaluating. Do you take into account that you've been heavily bombarded with anti communism propaganda for over a century?

If you constantly filter out the left, all that remains is the right sliding off into extremism. The KKK has never been hindered much, fi. They're still around. How is that even possible in a democracy?

 

[living sounds]

I was wondering if you were going to address the obvious gap between the developed world's "underlying the cyclical ups and downs there is also a general trend of progress" and that of the less developed tribal nations of Australia, NZ, Pacific Islands, North America, etc. prior to contact with each other. Why did these peoples' culture not progress with the same general upward trend? It certainly wasn't for lack of resources in the case of North American natives. But now you think this lack of progress is desirable? Those of us who are older recall the various "return to nature" and more primitive ways of living movements that became popular in the 1960s and 70s. It didn't seem to pan out (for obvious reasons).


Well, tribal organization works in smaller and lower density population situations. Are you advocating for radical population reduction? I would also point out the obvious undesirable aspects of the more developed (but still far behind Europe, Asia, and Africa) South and Central American civilzations that developed in pre-Columbian times. They were characterized by centralized authority, hierarchical organization, and slavery, sometimes with a violent religion topping it all off. Yes, they are interesting to study. I don't think emulation is a good idea.


That seems like a real stretch. Hadn't those stale western monarchies already encountered less developed civilations as well as very differently advanced ones in South Asia, China, etc.? I mean Ghengis Khan and his successors "encountered" a lot of Europe centuries before Europeans "found" the Americas.


I'm not sure everyone who works considers their job "drudgery." With what do you propose replacing the very real and human purposes (providing for self and family, a sense of accomplishment/purpose/duty) of work and career?


Says who?


You first.


According to which "experts?" There you go, more negative waves...

Yea... read the book. I'm not going to provide a complete synopsis.

 

[living sounds]

Why the most radical liberals, from the most liberal, developed, democratic and wealthy countries are so enamored with communism or communist ideals is something that completely eludes me. I mean, not to point out fingers, but not long ago they had to build a wall so people in your own country wouldn't flee in droves from the communist side to the American side; and now somehow communism is great or the only viable option? I sincerely don't get it...

I'm not advocating Communism. It just may sound like that to ideologically tilted ears. It all happened before. From the 1930s on the American people collectively decided (or rather, to prevent a Communist revolution, the elites found it the lesser evil and went along) to rebalance the share of working people vs the elite in reaping the fruits of the economic engine. It brought about a golden age of technological discoveries, broadly shared prosperity, shrinking debt, raised living standards.

 

[scott2000]

How is that even possible in a democracy?

maybe ask some nazis, eugenics freaks, etc....

 

[AnalogPackrat]

We're still shooting the messenger...

It doesn't matter which side an idea comes from. It's the idea itself that should be evaluated, not the messenger.

I've responded to the problematic ideas and pointed out the flaws that I see.

And with most Americans, as soon as it even smells of communism, they stop evaluating. Do you take into account that you've been heavily bombarded with anti communism propaganda for over a century?

Having lived in an area where collectivism and communism are adored by many (Santa Cruz and Berkeley, CA and other very left enclaves and Universities in the SF Bay Area) I've heard both sides and had many, many discussions with friends and co-workers on that side. Keep trying to attack the messenger.

If you constantly filter out the left, all that remains is the right sliding off into extremism.

LOL. False dichotomy. Overgeneralization. The "silent majority" here are firmly moderate. You are clueless.

The KKK has never been hindered much, fi.

That must be why its membership has dwindled and its activities are almost never seen in the current day.

They're still around. How is that even possible in a democracy?

Well, it's a Republic. And if there's not violence, threats of violence, or other criminal activity then it must be tolerated to a certain degree. I mean, Antifa and BLM did an awful lot of damage and how is it possible that they're still around? Never mind what Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Kim regime have done and yet communism is still purported to be a viable option for free western societies? How is that possible?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Yea... read the book. I'm not going to provide a complete synopsis.

I might. I downloaded Ages of Discord.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I'm not advocating Communism. It just may sound like that to ideologically tilted ears. It all happened before. From the 1930s on the American people collectively decided (or rather, to prevent a Communist revolution, the elites found it the lesser evil and went along) to rebalance the share of working people vs the elite in reaping the fruits of the economic engine. It brought about a golden age of technological discoveries, broadly shared prosperity, shrinking debt, raised living standards.

Ah, that oft repeated yarn. What actually dug the US out of The Great Depression was its entering WWII and the massive investment in manufacturing and tech innovation to defeat the Axis powers. Much of the investment continued into the Cold War, though at a different scale.

It's pretty easy to argue that The New Deal and The Great Society, among other programs, led to mass dependency and the devolution of family and cultural values.

 

[living sounds]

I might. I downloaded Ages of Discord.

Great. However, in this case I was refererring to "The Dawn of Everything".

 

[living sounds]

It's pretty easy to argue that The New Deal and The Great Society, among other programs, led to mass dependency and the devolution of family and cultural values.

That's a specifically American narrative. Skandinavian countries have long had a robust social safety net in place. The idea that this would destroy family and culture is a totally alien one there.

What destroyed culture and families is poverty, inequality, lack of social mobility. The new deal brought education, transportation, electricity - infrastructure, to the rural population. The social programs from the tail end of the liberal consensus era were subsequently gutted and never ran as intended. As is well known racism - the Southern Strategy - was used to impliment policies that turned the tides against working people and in favour of the elites.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Great. However, in this case I was refererring to "The Dawn of Everything".

I'll try the freebie first.