Progressive Ideology

[MDlaxfan76]

It's a sound point that communities should not 'need' the munificence of supremely wealthy benefactors, but the reality of our primarily capitalist system is that we allow, indeed encourage, wealth accumulation by the fabulously successful few. Their creative success is, or at least can be, an enormous benefit to the overall society (though imperfectly for sure).

But I don't think we should turn up our noses up at their decision to 'give back', indeed that too should be encouraged.

Which isn't to say that tax reform on extreme accumulated wealth doesn't make sense, given that not all such folks are disposed to be as generous as some...but seems to me that when those who are indeed so disposed step up, we shouldn't discourage that effort or be snide about it.

[PizzaSnake]

It's a sound point that communities should not 'need' the munificence of supremely wealthy benefactors, but the reality of our primarily capitalist system is that we allow, indeed encourage, wealth accumulation by the fabulously successful few. Their creative success is, or at least can be, an enormous benefit to the overall society (though imperfectly for sure).

But I don't think we should turn up our noses up at their decision to 'give back', indeed that too should be encouraged.

Which isn't to say that tax reform on extreme accumulated wealth doesn't make sense, given that not all such folks are disposed to be as generous as some...but seems to me that when those who are indeed so disposed step up, we shouldn't discourage that effort or be snide about it.

"the reality of our primarily capitalist system is"

What is the reality of this system? Has it served the majority of the community well? Is it time for some modification? Can it possibly allocate capital and guide the changes necessary to respond to the rapidly evolving climate change? Is a growth dependent "Ponzi" structure with its attendant population growth going to allow for an orderly adjustment, or are going to slide inexorably into a violent, disorderly rebalancing?

[Farfromgeneva]

It's a sound point that communities should not 'need' the munificence of supremely wealthy benefactors, but the reality of our primarily capitalist system is that we allow, indeed encourage, wealth accumulation by the fabulously successful few. Their creative success is, or at least can be, an enormous benefit to the overall society (though imperfectly for sure).

But I don't think we should turn up our noses up at their decision to 'give back', indeed that too should be encouraged.

Which isn't to say that tax reform on extreme accumulated wealth doesn't make sense, given that not all such folks are disposed to be as generous as some...but seems to me that when those who are indeed so disposed step up, we shouldn't discourage that effort or be snide about it.

"the reality of our primarily capitalist system is"

What is the reality of this system? Has it served the majority of the community well? Is it time for some modification? Can it possibly allocate capital and guide the changes necessary to respond to the rapidly evolving climate change? Is a growth dependent "Ponzi" structure with its attendant population growth going to allow for an orderly adjustment, or are going to slide inexorably into a violent, disorderly rebalancing?

Just make sure you’re not just talking about moving down the line on the same spectrum. In other words just moving to the opposite of platonic ideal of capitalism is the same paradigm. Something new and different isn’t just transfers heading in different directions or biases skewing in the opposite direction.

Population analysis, Malthus is underrated, is a huge consideration in all of this. From the constant ill informed comparisons with Scandinavian countries but also consider the population when capitalism evolved vs today. It was a system built for a much smaller pool or set of numbers where the dispersion wouldn’t be quite as great given there’s only so low one can go in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It’s built on averages and the worlds population is 7.7x the size it was in 1800, shortly after Adam Smith began developing capitalism. We are slowly learning as humans that living in the averages is less optimal in most circumstances as the size of the population increases. Same with processing power. We are trying to adapt to a world with far larger numbers. Seems like the world may be headed more towards pods, sub units and some de-linking.

We also can’t ignore as America that we are in a population slump. Boomers were never going to be replaced with a household birth rate below replacement rate of 1.8-1.9 (to account for infant deaths minus migration). It’s like the life cycle of a business. Also why just throwing money at problems is how a legacy company like Westinghouse or Kodak disappears.

Not sure the answers but I’m certain that just moving back and forth along a line like a pendulum doesn’t work.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's a sound point that communities should not 'need' the munificence of supremely wealthy benefactors, but the reality of our primarily capitalist system is that we allow, indeed encourage, wealth accumulation by the fabulously successful few. Their creative success is, or at least can be, an enormous benefit to the overall society (though imperfectly for sure).

But I don't think we should turn up our noses up at their decision to 'give back', indeed that too should be encouraged.

Which isn't to say that tax reform on extreme accumulated wealth doesn't make sense, given that not all such folks are disposed to be as generous as some...but seems to me that when those who are indeed so disposed step up, we shouldn't discourage that effort or be snide about it.

"the reality of our primarily capitalist system is"

What is the reality of this system? Has it served the majority of the community well? Is it time for some modification? Can it possibly allocate capital and guide the changes necessary to respond to the rapidly evolving climate change? Is a growth dependent "Ponzi" structure with its attendant population growth going to allow for an orderly adjustment, or are going to slide inexorably into a violent, disorderly rebalancing?

Very interesting questions and I'll try to give some more thought as to how to best answer : I'm getting called by my wife to watch another episode of Call My Agent on Netflix!

In the meantime, I'm certainly interested in reform and adjustment, but I do think the engine of capitalism is overall a very positive force...but it ain't necessarily a fair or moral or equitable force, nor can it deal with externalities etc without regulation...maybe more tomorrow...including Farfromgeneva's Malthus etc...

[kramerica.inc]

Gav-gav Newsom supporters out in egg-ceptional force!

https://twitter.com/katecagle/status/14 ... 92771?s=21

[seacoaster]

Gav-gav Newsom supporters out in egg-ceptional force!

https://twitter.com/katecagle/status/14 ... 92771?s=21

Why (clutching pearls), name calling?

[youthathletics]

Gav-gav Newsom supporters out in egg-ceptional force!

https://twitter.com/katecagle/status/14 ... 92771?s=21

Why (clutching pearls), name calling?

Oh...you missed them swinging and landing punches I suppose, while wearing a gorilla mask.

[seacoaster]

Gav-gav Newsom supporters out in egg-ceptional force!

https://twitter.com/katecagle/status/14 ... 92771?s=21

Why (clutching pearls), name calling?

Oh...you missed them swinging and landing punches I suppose, while wearing a gorilla mask.

Different topic.

[kramerica.inc]

Name calling - where?

[seacoaster]

Name calling - where?

Yeah, I can see how you’d miss calling the Governor of California “Gav-gav.” A day after deriding “the left” about name calling. You are whoever you are.

[Farfromgeneva]

It's a sound point that communities should not 'need' the munificence of supremely wealthy benefactors, but the reality of our primarily capitalist system is that we allow, indeed encourage, wealth accumulation by the fabulously successful few. Their creative success is, or at least can be, an enormous benefit to the overall society (though imperfectly for sure).

But I don't think we should turn up our noses up at their decision to 'give back', indeed that too should be encouraged.

Which isn't to say that tax reform on extreme accumulated wealth doesn't make sense, given that not all such folks are disposed to be as generous as some...but seems to me that when those who are indeed so disposed step up, we shouldn't discourage that effort or be snide about it.

"the reality of our primarily capitalist system is"

What is the reality of this system? Has it served the majority of the community well? Is it time for some modification? Can it possibly allocate capital and guide the changes necessary to respond to the rapidly evolving climate change? Is a growth dependent "Ponzi" structure with its attendant population growth going to allow for an orderly adjustment, or are going to slide inexorably into a violent, disorderly rebalancing?

Thinking about this a little and I think that capitalism as much as I believe in it. I have started to worry that the elegance of the invisible hand also makes it organic and once alive on its own path not so much for growth but optimization. Ricardian concept of comparative advantage (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_economics) drives us to kind of all go to our corners and what it does in a government/social context is still and experiment.

But with respect to population side (Malthusian) yes it’s going to be messy and we’re economically acting like the 1/6 rioters rather than trying to restructure and take some short term pain for the long term benefit.

A corollary-a friend who was us general counsel for the European bank I worked at was reading through a bi-lateral credit agreement to see if they had to fund Ford if the line was drawn upon. Because the big three negotiated by force with banks in the 90s with their pristine credit ratings the answer was “yeah you gotta fund” wrapped around legalese. Interestingly I wrote a white paper in a MBA strategy class on Ford shrinking, moving on from premier auto group. They spent most of the 2000s seeing the writing on the wall and liquified anything that wasn’t nailed down and probably got cash for installed equipment too I bet. They bought out legacy expensive employees and shrunk their business before the crisis. Who didn’t have to take govt money to survive the financial crisis you ask of all the autos???? FORD The crisis didnt cause the auto makers problems it accelerated the destruction. The other Mgt teams lied to get that money because they didn’t do what Ford did and take the pain 3-5yrs earlier. We need to take some pain to be stronger but we continue to make us all fragilistas (Tm Taleb) by trying to eliminate risk in life which is moronic and we’re all responsible because we all bought into one politician or another who pitched that they could derail our lives in some way. It’s bulkshit.

[Farfromgeneva]

For Brook and a few others

https://www.opednews.com/articles/CEO-R ... 7-229.html

[kramerica.inc]

This would have been a bad take back on January 7. Then you realize it was made on 9-11.

https://twitter.com/pamkeithfl/status/1 ... 97345?s=21

[jhu93]

It's a sound point that communities should not 'need' the munificence of supremely wealthy benefactors, but the reality of our primarily capitalist system is that we allow, indeed encourage, wealth accumulation by the fabulously successful few. Their creative success is, or at least can be, an enormous benefit to the overall society (though imperfectly for sure).

But I don't think we should turn up our noses up at their decision to 'give back', indeed that too should be encouraged.

Which isn't to say that tax reform on extreme accumulated wealth doesn't make sense, given that not all such folks are disposed to be as generous as some...but seems to me that when those who are indeed so disposed step up, we shouldn't discourage that effort or be snide about it.

"the reality of our primarily capitalist system is"

What is the reality of this system? Has it served the majority of the community well? Is it time for some modification? Can it possibly allocate capital and guide the changes necessary to respond to the rapidly evolving climate change? Is a growth dependent "Ponzi" structure with its attendant population growth going to allow for an orderly adjustment, or are going to slide inexorably into a violent, disorderly rebalancing?

Thinking about this a little and I think that capitalism as much as I believe in it. I have started to worry that the elegance of the invisible hand also makes it organic and once alive on its own path not so much for growth but optimization. Ricardian concept of comparative advantage (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_economics) drives us to kind of all go to our corners and what it does in a government/social context is still and experiment.

But with respect to population side (Malthusian) yes it’s going to be messy and we’re economically acting like the 1/6 rioters rather than trying to restructure and take some short term pain for the long term benefit.

A corollary-a friend who was us general counsel for the European bank I worked at was reading through a bi-lateral credit agreement to see if they had to fund Ford if the line was drawn upon. Because the big three negotiated by force with banks in the 90s with their pristine credit ratings the answer was “yeah you gotta fund” wrapped around legalese. Interestingly I wrote a white paper in a MBA strategy class on Ford shrinking, moving on from premier auto group. They spent most of the 2000s seeing the writing on the wall and liquified anything that wasn’t nailed down and probably got cash for installed equipment too I bet. They bought out legacy expensive employees and shrunk their business before the crisis. Who didn’t have to take govt money to survive the financial crisis you ask of all the autos???? FORD The crisis didnt cause the auto makers problems it accelerated the destruction. The other Mgt teams lied to get that money because they didn’t do what Ford did and take the pain 3-5yrs earlier. We need to take some pain to be stronger but we continue to make us all fragilistas (Tm Taleb) by trying to eliminate risk in life which is moronic and we’re all responsible because we all bought into one politician or another who pitched that they could derail our lives in some way. It’s bulkshit.

Wow, you are so impressive. You wrote a white paper, man you are so awesome. How do I subscribe to your newsletter? Do you live in Detroit? That's a great place to stay woke.

[jhu93]

It's a sound point that communities should not 'need' the munificence of supremely wealthy benefactors, but the reality of our primarily capitalist system is that we allow, indeed encourage, wealth accumulation by the fabulously successful few. Their creative success is, or at least can be, an enormous benefit to the overall society (though imperfectly for sure).

But I don't think we should turn up our noses up at their decision to 'give back', indeed that too should be encouraged.

Which isn't to say that tax reform on extreme accumulated wealth doesn't make sense, given that not all such folks are disposed to be as generous as some...but seems to me that when those who are indeed so disposed step up, we shouldn't discourage that effort or be snide about it.

"the reality of our primarily capitalist system is"

What is the reality of this system? Has it served the majority of the community well? Is it time for some modification? Can it possibly allocate capital and guide the changes necessary to respond to the rapidly evolving climate change? Is a growth dependent "Ponzi" structure with its attendant population growth going to allow for an orderly adjustment, or are going to slide inexorably into a violent, disorderly rebalancing?

Thinking about this a little and I think that capitalism as much as I believe in it. I have started to worry that the elegance of the invisible hand also makes it organic and once alive on its own path not so much for growth but optimization. Ricardian concept of comparative advantage (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_economics) drives us to kind of all go to our corners and what it does in a government/social context is still and experiment.

But with respect to population side (Malthusian) yes it’s going to be messy and we’re economically acting like the 1/6 rioters rather than trying to restructure and take some short term pain for the long term benefit.

A corollary-a friend who was us general counsel for the European bank I worked at was reading through a bi-lateral credit agreement to see if they had to fund Ford if the line was drawn upon. Because the big three negotiated by force with banks in the 90s with their pristine credit ratings the answer was “yeah you gotta fund” wrapped around legalese. Interestingly I wrote a white paper in a MBA strategy class on Ford shrinking, moving on from premier auto group. They spent most of the 2000s seeing the writing on the wall and liquified anything that wasn’t nailed down and probably got cash for installed equipment too I bet. They bought out legacy expensive employees and shrunk their business before the crisis. Who didn’t have to take govt money to survive the financial crisis you ask of all the autos???? FORD The crisis didnt cause the auto makers problems it accelerated the destruction. The other Mgt teams lied to get that money because they didn’t do what Ford did and take the pain 3-5yrs earlier. We need to take some pain to be stronger but we continue to make us all fragilistas (Tm Taleb) by trying to eliminate risk in life which is moronic and we’re all responsible because we all bought into one politician or another who pitched that they could derail our lives in some way. It’s bulkshit.

Wow, you are so impressive. You wrote a white paper, man you are so awesome. How do I subscribe to your newsletter? Do you live in Detroit? That's a great place to stay woke.

Is bulkshit something you can get on a sandwich in Geneva? Might as well be, there is nothing else to look forward to if you are stuck there for some reason or your parents weren't smart enough to get out of there when they had the chance.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Wow, you are so impressive. You wrote a white paper, man you are so awesome. How do I subscribe to your newsletter? Do you live in Detroit? That's a great place to stay woke.

Is bulkshit something you can get on a sandwich in Geneva? Might as well be, there is nothing else to look forward to if you are stuck there for some reason or your parents weren't smart enough to get out of there when they had the chance.

The hobart finance bro has his own issues like us all, but he's consistent and mostly coherent. Talking to yourself with no clear intent puts you in the front of the line. Good job playing yourself out before you got started. next!!

[Farfromgeneva]

Last night this supposed person bombed me with 5 assault shots on different threads as if specifically looking for me and one or two others within 10 minutes (notifications). This is an intentional attack by somebody, who hadn’t posted since early feb and had less than 50 posts at the time meaning over ten percent in ten minutes of a multi year existence was targeted specifically at me. I hate having oversight in general but if this isn’t a specific declaration of war against the entire existence of this platform and warranting review and action by the people in control I don’t know what is. Not even worth replying to. I don’t even recall ever having an exchange with this handle. It’s a clear exploitation of the platform and looking to cause problems with zero other intent. Why someone would do this on a nice Saturday night is beyond me by for what it’s worth that’s what happened and we will see how the folks who’ve invested all their time to build and support this thing feel about being used like this for somebody’s goofy jerkoff session.

[Brooklyn]

Newsom soundly defeats recall attempt


California Gov. Gavin Newsom survived a historic recall election Tuesday, winning a major vote of confidence during a COVID-19 pandemic that has shattered families and livelihoods and tested his ability to lead the state through the largest worldwide health crisis in modern times.

The recall offered Republicans their best chance in more than a decade to take the helm of the largest state in the union. But the effort was undercut when Newsom and the nation's leading Democrats, aided by visits to California by President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, portrayed the campaign to oust the governor as a "life and death" battle against "Trumpism" and far-right anti-vaccine activists.

Conservative talk show host Larry Elder led the 46 candidates on the second question on the ballot hoping to become governor, but that became meaningless after a majority of California voters decided to keep Newsom in office.

Moments after national television networks called the election for Newsom, the governor walked into the California Democratic Headquarters in Sacramento to talk with reporters, forgoing a victory celebration as is commonplace in traditional campaigns.

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... om-results



Good of those folks to defeat the radical right wing agenda.

[youthathletics]

Bill Gates....dropping dimes on the work he and his team are doing. Freudian slip...as he twists his hands together with a jaunty smirk: https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/144 ... 55489?s=20

[Farfromgeneva]

Bill Gates....dropping dimes on the work he and his team are doing. Freudian slip...as he twists his hands together with a jaunty smirk: https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/144 ... 55489?s=20

Guy who I bought my house from was a BCG consultant to and then took a job with the gates foundation. Thought he’s been doing some good work these past few years. That’s why he had to sell quick at same price he bought it in 07-08. Made him rent it back from me for a couple of months at twice the nut so I thank Bill for covering my closing costs and first month or two of carry.