The Impending Death of Modern Capitalism
Let's make sure we're all on the same page on the definition of capitalism.
It's basically a system in which private owne
Can we get to the point where living the good life is subsidised because it's for the good of the species? And have a gym tax.
Maybe a governement paid for double scotch after every pint over 3 or 4 ?
We had all that stuff built in - mostly inadvertantely. It wasnt until you people came along and decided that humans deserved better. But at least you got abortion right.
Ok so the 7pints and a vindaloo are actually medicine? I'll try that at my next doctors visit.
btw I think you're understating the importance of the vindaloo.
Some people choose less destructive means of processing their emotions than alcoholism. They might go to a therapist for example or have a good friend that they can talk to. Or they might use exercise or meditation as vehicles for release. White Sox or Cleveland Browns fans might just yell at the TV while they're getting steamrolled.
Some people insulate themselves from their emotions with 75 lbs of extra fat.
Why is it destructive - I thought we had establised it was good for survival. I also dont get what you mean by extra fat. it's necessary fat. Good fat.
If it protects from predatory therapists then all the better
Alcohol is a means by which people release emotions which they are trained to not process in real time. Let's say your boss at work does something that makes you angry but you can't express your anger because your need your job to pay the bills. You train yourself to smile and say yes sir or yes ma'am while inside you are pissed off at someone mistreaing you. Where does that an
Huh?
I thought I drank alcohol because it make brain feel good
Some people choose less destructive means of processing their emotions than alcoholism. They might go to a therapist for example or have a good friend that they can talk to. Or they might use exercise or meditation as vehicles for release. White Sox or Cleveland Browns fans might just yell at the TV while they're getting steamrolled.
Bukowski balanced out his alcoholism by writing about it.
This is how modern capitalism ends ..... when the losses break the insurance industry.
Assets than can't be insured lose value.
The owners who have financed those assets with debt go under and walk away from the assets.
The banks funding those debts become insolvent.
Governments pump fake money into to rescue the banks.
Fake money creates inflation for real goods.
Too many people can't afford the basics.
Chaos ensues.
Every asset is going up in value because fiat is crap. Gold all time high, stocks all time high, bitcoin all time high. Most commodities, all time high.
The collapse comes when the printing of currency is so out of control the market can't ignore it anymore and confidence fails. Everyone flees the dollar and all fiat currency for anything with real value.
They have to print their way out there's no other real options which will someday collapse the currency. They have done an impressive job kicking the can down the road though
Yes it is but of course cattle don't have the intelligence to rebel. They have no real cognizance of what's going on despite it being obvious to anyone with an average human intellect.
Yes it is but of course cattle don't have the intelligence to rebel. They have no real cognizance of what's going on despite it being obvious to anyone with an average human intellect.
Look around. Do you see humans successfully rebelling against the deathly triad of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy of the ruling elites ?
Look around. Do you see humans successfully rebelling against the deathly triad of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy of the ruling elites ?
the triad you mention is a necessary condition in any individual to achieve real power. Only with real power you can change things. All things are only determined by narcisistic, machiavellian psychopaths in human history.
That has always been the case btw, in all societies.
What you have to hope for is for people high in that triad to also rationally conclude they gain personally from the masses gaining a bit. That's what western success and history is about, that's the unicum. More long termism among machiavellian psychopaths than it's usually the case elsewhere.
We are losing that now with the western left collapsing back to anti-western ways of thinking.
To add to Luciom monarchies seemed to perform somewhat well for the people because the leaders needed to think long term and knew their sons and daughters would inherent the throne so also had incentive.
the triad you mention is a necessary condition in any individual to achieve real power. Only with real power you can change things. All things are only determined by narcisistic, machiavellian psychopaths in human history.
That has always been the case btw, in all societies.
Very sloppy thinking as usual.
Counterpoint:
To add to Luciom monarchies seemed to perform somewhat well for the people because the leaders needed to think long term and knew their sons and daughters would inherent the throne so also had incentive.
That's Yarvin thesis but i disagree, especially because we have the example of the longest-working polity in the west , with massive international success even with 0 natural resources, of the republic of Venice.
For most of it's history, the highest per capita real gdp of their time. A truly glorious example of success of every scale we use to measure it for human quality of life. Which, just for example, banned the use of ships to trade slaves more than 1000 years ago. Yes some slavery persisted in the city, on a private, small scale, far less than in other urban settings, for a couple of centuries more, but by far and large they were among the first abolitionists in history.
Then there are the massive, tremendous, hardly-replicated-in-history successes of city-states, all with non-monarchic governments. They usually all faded away when they became "signorie" (=monarchies) with few exceptions.
The best examples of western superiority vs all other models of society ever devised at their time where the republic of venice and the city-states of northern italy and southern germany.
And invariably, they were all oligopolies where only the best and the brightest had real political power, but with a range wide enough to provide for competition on the merits and actual success among competing proposals, and with the long termism linked to the necessity of the polity being succesful for the prominent family involved in politics to be succesful as well (solving the principal-agent problem).
If the most important families own most of the assets and conduct most of the economic activity, and the polity is small enough for them to fail miserably if the polity fails, you have long termism and you have the principal-agent problem solved. And politics is (as in every society all the times) the power struggle among the elites with both win-win and 0 sum games being played at the same time, without the stupid useless costly sovrastructure of pretending people are acting for anything that isn't their personal and familistic long term interest.
You just align what everyone, everywhere, all the times does with reality.
Another example of a shallow and empty hypothesis from Lucifer that he refuses to debate.
He refuses to acknowledge the obviously important historical roles of leaders who were unifiers.
2 of listed people were sky high on the 3 named traits but I don't feel like it's a useful way to spend my time to go into the details of how narcisistic Lincoln was or how psychopathic Gandhi was.
it then becomes an endless back and forth with attempts to minimize all my claims and so on and on.
Gandhi in particular was an actual true monster of a person, an indefensible horrific individual of history so anyone using him in a list of purported "too good to be touched" people must be so high and so distant from measurable reality it's hard to discuss.
FDR interned hundreds of thousands of citizens making him by far the most violent fascist president in American history and the worst elected democratically leader in a fair election of any western country in history by a large margin.
that alone disqualifies him and everyone who doesn't consider him another monster of history.
that you think a person who did that isn't a glaring example of how you need to be a warped, inhuman psychopath to reach the pinnacle of power is quite telling.
and he didn't only do that. he sequestered gold from all Americans (!!!!) as well.
was he Machiavellian? he basically invented the CIA ffs. he managed to control the judiciaries more than any other president in history.
was he a narcissist?
pew researchers put him as the 4th more narcissist American president
I mean FDR is one of the most glaring historical examples of how you need the big triad high to get to power even in previously liberal democracies!!!!
he slept with naked underaged girls (purportedly without having sex with them) to "prove his celibacy" . that included his granddaughters.
the wives of other people attending his ashram had to sleep with him not with their husbands.
he was an incestuous child molester, who believed fully in the caste system.
Lincoln was by far the less disastrous of the 3 listed people (2 of which should actually be used as clear cut example of how atrocious historically people who reach max power are, as I explained) , and you can both use it to claim that my claim isn't perfect , and j can use it to claim that he reached power quite accidentally.
he won with the lowest popular share of the vote in American history iirc. he had only hold federal office for 2 years at that point, and many years before, and a minor inconsequential one at that (house rep.).
one could say he was a normal (not high in the 3 traits) man who was catapulted into power by a series of coincidence that made him president at a crucial juncture of American history and he performed exceptionally well given the circumstances, maybe exactly because he was not the kind of person we would expect to ever hold such a high office.
My ideal of the consummate leader is captured in the fictional character Mance Rayder from the TV series Game of Thrones.
He transcended his tribal indoctrination to see the Wildings as enemies and proceeded to unite the various warring Wilding tribes into a cohesive whole for the greater purpose of surviving the zombie horde.
In real life, the zombie equivalents are the "wealthy consumatrons". People who have a lot of money and exercise the temporary liberty to consume as much as they like and pollute the planet with toxic byproducts of their consumption.
This is simply a malignant form of competition. People with more money have better access to mates for reproductive advantage which is a form of competition deeply wired into all animals. Their consumption is like a peacock demonstrating its colorful feathers to prove its fitness as a mate.
Humans are competitive animals with little control over our basic impulse to mate. That's lack of control makes us zombie equivalents.
I mean at this point you might as well name Mandela (a terrorist communist) and mother Theresa (a theocratic psychopath) as examples of "good people" , I suppose those are part of your pantheon of exemplary individuals as well
My ideal of the consummate leader is captured in the fictional character Mance Rayder from the TV series Game of Thrones. He transcended his tribal indoctrination to see the Wildings as enemies and proceeded to unite the various warring Wilding tribes into a cohesive whole for the greater purpose of surviving the zombie horde.In real life, the zombie equivalents are the "wealth
the white walkers are the Marxists obviously, who leave only death behind them.
Raider is the very leftist who shared the land with Marxist adjacent people up until it's clear they would all be killed by the Marxists and only then, and only to survive themselves, they manage to unite even with all the deep fractures among them, to try to survive.
Let's all observe that I asked Lucifer to identify the Machiavellian (divide and conquer) qualities of these leaders and he refuses to acknowledge the historical roles of leaders who promoted unity.
He refuses to acknowledge the ebb and flow between division and unity, insisting that all meaningful historical action has been achieved by dividers.
He doesn't provide data or analysis to support his positions. He is just like the geyser Old Faithful at Yellowstone ... routinely spouting out nonsense in order to gain attention to himself.
Let's all observe that I asked Lucifer to identify the Machiavellian (divide and conquer) qualities of these leaders and he refuses to acknowledge the historical roles of leaders who promoted unity. He refuses to acknowledge the ebb and flow between division and unity, insisting that all meaningful historical action has been achieved by dividers. He doesn't provide data or anal
Gandhi promoted unity so much India got partitioned in 3 under racial/religious lines jfc.
FDR promoted unity so much he interned Japanese Americans
It's not a surprise that a person like Lucifer who preaches that all meaningful achievement is achieved by dividers engages in transparent attempts at division himself.
He is emulating what he claims to value .... Machiavellian divide and conquer. He is an agent of division.
From the perspective of those would seek to promote unity. He is a cancer.
