America's Dangerous Obsession With Invincibility - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15257478
late wrote:
Soap opera...

The reality sucked before the governments collapsed. The reality is there is no magic. If you look at earlier instances of countries becoming capitalist, they all went through a rough time.

In effect, you're expecting a bumper harvest before you've even bought the farm.



What am I 'expecting', late -- ?

You can't say that all of the countries on earth that wanted to overthrow their monarchies / feudalism -- not unlike the U.S. did -- had unencumbered routes to it.

Grade-school-level treatments don't suffice here, late -- there was no 'blank slate' for all countries industrializing in the 20th century, contrary to your McDonalds tray liner version of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ime_change
#15257481
late wrote:
It's history, as opposed to your silliness.



Uh-huh. If you're so eager to get back on-topic, here it is, to supplant your dusty State Dept. pamphlets.



1918–1920: Russia

Main article: Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

In 1918 the U.S. military took part in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War to support White movement and overthrow the Bolsheviks.[43] President Wilson agreed to send 5,000 United States Army troops in the campaign. This force, which became known as the "American North Russia Expeditionary Force"[44] (a.k.a. the Polar Bear Expedition) launched the North Russia Campaign from Arkhangelsk, while another 8,000 soldiers, organised as the American Expeditionary Force Siberia,[45] launched the Siberia intervention from Vladivostok.[46] The forces were withdrawn in 1920.[47]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... 20:_Russia
#15257482
late wrote:
Wake me when you have an alternative.



Thanks, brah. (fist bump)

Pretty-much *anything* would be better than *this* dross (when one really *looks* at it):


labor and capital, side-by-side

Spoiler: show
Image



---


So here it is, encapsulated:



[T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.



https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15257496
ckaihatsu wrote:
What *is* this, *modern art* -- ?

Is this your 'installation', history-themed?




They have these things called facts.

When the Brits developed a capitalist economy it was 70 kinds of ugly. Most have no idea how ugly it was. That is the way things usually go. Things can get better later, but the transition is tough.

I have stopped clicking on your links. It's kinda pathetic.
#15257499
ckaihatsu wrote:
Annnnnnd now we're talking about Britain. Okay.



I was talking about developing a capitalist economy. The Brits are a good example partly because we have so much information about it.

There was brain dead crap being spewed, Russia was a corrupt horrid mess before it collapsed.
#15257503
late wrote:
I was talking about developing a capitalist economy.



The ascendancy of the British Empire -- ? That's *topical*. Go on.


late wrote:
The Brits are a good example partly because we have so much information about it.

There was brain dead crap being spewed, Russia was a corrupt horrid mess before it collapsed.



Sounds too much like finger-pointing -- what about what *led into* all of that?

To *me* it sounds like the USSR played into a *dare* during the latter Cold War -- the missile arms race -- and went belly-up as a result. And the U.S. has *zero culpability* in all of that?

20th century historical geopolitics resembles *playground* politics.
#15257506
late wrote:
The childishness is yours, the history is unequivocal.

The USSR had a command economy, and failure was inevitable.



Noted, but is *this* 'success' -- ?



In economics, the wage ratio refers to the ratio of the top salaries in a group (company, city, country, etc.) to the bottom salaries. It is a measure of wage dispersion.

There has been a resurgence in the importance of the wage ratio. The amount of money paid out to executives has steadily been on the rise. "An April 2013 study by Bloomberg finds that large public company CEOs were paid an average of 204 times the compensation of rank-and-file workers in their industries. By comparison, it is estimated that the average CEO was paid about 20 times the typical worker’s pay in the 1950s, with that multiple rising to 42-to-1 in 1980, and to 120-to-1 in 2000".[1] While not as extreme, similar trends have been observed around the world.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_ratio
#15257524
ckaihatsu wrote:
Noted, but is *this* 'success' -- ?



Wages are rising.

It's supply and demand, when avarice is not constrained by government. Now that the Boomers are dying off, the demand exceeds supply and that will continue to increase wages. Hopefully politics will eventually start working again, and we will have a Progressive era that will directly address the income inequality.
#15257544
late wrote:The reality is we had no authority. There was no way for us to change what they were doing. Unless we forcibly took control of the country.

Nobody wanted that, esp. not you...



Well, I think I can't argue the bolded part as I do think myself a nobody.

Although it unsettles me that you think QatzelOk not so.
#15257550
late wrote:
Wages are rising.

It's supply and demand, when avarice is not constrained by government. Now that the Boomers are dying off, the demand exceeds supply and that will continue to increase wages. Hopefully politics will eventually start working again, and we will have a Progressive era that will directly address the income inequality.



*Or*, people are *so* sick of having their time wasted by capitalist international management, that they back the railroaders and bring the corporations to their knees.
#15257555
ckaihatsu wrote:
*Or*, people are *so* sick of having their time wasted by capitalist international management, that they back the railroaders and bring the corporations to their knees.



In the age of pandemics, not having paid sick leave is nuts. I expect government mandates, like the ones you see in Europe. On top of that, a resurgence by Unions will get many benefits above and beyond that.
#15257556
late wrote:
In the age of pandemics, not having paid sick leave is nuts. I expect government mandates, like the ones you see in Europe. On top of that, a resurgence by Unions will get many benefits above and beyond that.



And we need statism -- *why* -- ?

So same time here tomorrow, then? (grin)
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
We hit the debt ceiling thursday

If the US defaulted on its debt, meaning it would[…]

@wat0n I have no idea how that is a reply to […]

XogGyux, human exploitation is a choice. It is no[…]

I think our conceptions of 'living', and 'politic[…]