before i reply i'd like to say i agree with all you had to say below - but do dissargee on small things (mainly - UN serves the same role as The League of Nations - upholding internal law (you will not see me stating either of those bodies as ideal - and i agree the UN has too many flaws, just like the League did, but a flawed body is better than no body to uphold precepts of International law -------------- the other thing we disagree on is taxation, i think the rich should pay more in taxes (and you are wrong - about me - i cannot speak for others - i simply do not beleive in Trickldown, its got nothing to do with envy, i'm fine being a poor slob, fine as long as i can eat and have shelter - both i have secured most likely via my lifetime.
so envy is not my game, i speak for myself only.
i see that trickdown don't work so tax em more to serve the general good of society.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:00 pm
you do know the UN is toothless and has no army (nor should it), and only exists because of the Cold War (like Nato as well) - and to date serves the US, and a few other powerful nations as well (those on the security council)
Yes, I know. The UN was, in fact, a globalist delusion of Roosevelt's, from the start. As you say, it's toothless. But I also think it's immoral, because it fails to condemn very wicked regimes, and condemns free and democratic polities in their place.
agreed, the UN is sometimes immoral - fuck the human rights council last time i heard has Syria on it!
why? because the UN is toothless, and housed in NYC! and serves American internal interests.
UN is a puppet that serves America, and when it don't - like the linked body the ICC, we never sign up to it.
Ideally id like a moral UN that champions international law and rules for justice always.
but being a realist, the last thing i'd wish for is a one world UN with a world police to force its international law.
so i'm fine with an immoral puppet UN that serves the US, and the few other global powers in the name of Rule of Law - even though Syria is on the Human Rights Council.
why? because the UN though sometime immoral and hypocritical, serves my Nation's goals as a puppet.
how? by affirming the concept that there is and should be international law.
- now a question to you Sir.
do you think there should be such as thing as international law? I do, its served my nation since 1946 in limiting war into becoming world War 3.
IMO.
if you know history, then you know the Russian fucked up in 1949 when the UN authorized a reason to defend South Korea (the soviets boycotted the UN - so their reps were not on the SC when it was rulled upon to defend the South Koreans)
Ya! the NK invaded - started it, the UN gave the green light (since the Soviets were not there to block/deny) to defend the SK, and America - and 10? or so others likewise sent troops to defend.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
I'm saying that right now, you and I are already "eating cake," and need to be more grateful for the "cake" in our mouths, rather than angry that it's slightly less sweet than the "cake" the previous generation ate. We're still way, way ahead of the rest of history, and we need a tune-up on our history if we don't realize that.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!! agree 1000 percent!
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
You're not going to improve the economy or the lot of the average man by raising taxes on the rich.
I disagree, we've had Corporate Welfare since Reagan. so the the rich since him got richer and the poor poorer.
So welfare for the Rich is ok , but not for the poor worms?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
That's never worked, and it never will.
well we know there ain't no Trickle down, so what do we have to lose to try what was before Reagan? - via Carter and Eisenhower before him?
if we know Trickle down is a crock of shit, then try taxing the same corp. welfare recipenients and see the result.
either there will be more trickle or less.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
We need money-generating people, not money-consumers.
agreed! but we need to tax them at Eisenhower rates - 70-90 percent, not Reagan rates of 20 percent (Trickedown is bullsht).
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
As I say, we are statistically far better off than people throughout most of history...
of course we are, as are the Bangledeshi per their level a millina ago - that applies to all the "shit countries" today verses centuries ago.
and why i claimed - many times now - Globalization has served most of mankind (even though its fucked over the ave joe in 1st world nations).
You are preaching to the choir Sir.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
We need to stop whining like spoiled children, and be thankful for what we've got. And can we do better? Sure. But not by jealously pulling down anybody who's more successful than I am. That's just spite, and it won't create durable benefit for anyone. Instead of throwing riots and looting stores,
I agree fully. Humility is a virtue!
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
we've got to take personal responsibility for ourselves, and expect our fellow citizens and our politicians to do the same -- and to hold them to some standards when they don't behave. That's what we're not doing right now, and that's why things are on the skids.
exactly! we have not done as you and i say we should. instead we play the blame game and victim, as Rome Burns (and Rome did fall, as did the UK later -----all for the same reasons IMO).
I suspect you know that reason, and that we agree on it. i will not spell it out, you can start a thread on it if you wish and i will be contribute to the discussion).
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
The whole Western prosperity was built on one simple thing: the Protestant work ethic. Be honest, work, save, give, and don't consume rashly.
I agree 110 percent here! not a prot, nor do i have much of a work ethic, (so that i tell you that i'm lazy and an athiest, and yet agree with you, maybe you should take what i say with some weight. (or not, not a bully do whatever you like, just sayin here).
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
If we all did that, our economy would be booming.
no, not so, the falling of living standards in the West started in the early 70's - 30 yrs before the infantilization of American Sheople (playing victim/ident politics/movies based upon children comic books (sorry "Graphic Novels") - we are Idiocracy (great move BTW), and have been since the the 90's - only more so now, but we were not Idiocracy in the 70's nor 80's when the standard of living first started falling.
no, there is more to it than you say, what you say is relivant, and part of the picture, but the full picture IMO is that reagan created Corporate Welfare for the untra rich to hord via off shore havens and low taxes, starting the whole process of lowering ave standards of living for joe ave post 1980.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:22 pm
And even now, three things are statistically necessary for financial success in the West right now: 1) finish school, 2) don't get pregnant, or get anyone pregnant out of the context of committed matrimony, and 3) get a job...any job, and work at it diligently and honestly. With those three things in place, statistically, the chances of ending up below the poverty line are close to zero...barring sudden calamity, of course. But those are three things people are just not doing right now.
I agree those three things are vital to maximize success, but TECH is not the "enemy" of emplyment. Tech will soon remove the need for most men, and all cannot be PHD's - and even if we were the "Free market" would only need 2 - percent of the them......the other 98 percent? fucked.
not a fan of Yang, nor his UBI (getting survival money for sitting on your arse is not good for one's ego - nor society) - but is see a real End to Capitalism here via Tech - as i said we cant all be softwar engineers - and if we all could be - the job posts for such is lower anyway so irelivent if we all could be anyhow.
I see Capitialism going to the end of the road, with the skelliton of Communism.
what do we replace it with though?
That is the question of the 21 st century.
----------and there may be no answer/replacement.