LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 1:41 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:52 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:45 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:31 am

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:21 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:14 am How many posters do you have here? You have a handful of people who go back and forth (and spend way too much time wallowing in the sky is falling and nothing is right world). Of that handful how many don't like OS's persona? 80-90%? This is not a level playing field and posters are way too trigger happy to take shots at OS, there is no question about that. I'm not a left-right, D-R person but right here you can see how the more left and D folks who claim moral and ethical superiority are real quick to jump on and be nasty to those who disagree or are of a different opinion. This is as plain to see as the noses on your faces boys.

Is this just an observation, or do you have a remedy? Should people who have a difference of opinion refrain from voicing it when OS opines? Should OS not opine? What is your plan?

Of course it's an observation (a years long one at that). Nope, no one should refrain from or not opine. I'm not interested in coming up with a remedy and have no plan to do so.
When it was LP and there were many, many more posters (and some pretty darn sharp ones at that) things didn't go down the way they do here where it's a 9 v 1 and everybody pile on game. The discussions were much better there, was a much broader base and much less gang mentality. Jus' sayin'.

I'd like to see many more posters on here as well, would make for a richer conversation, even more information flow. But that should be primarily focused on more lax focused posters, participating actively there...some % will decide to participate in these other forums, but we definitely don't have as many lax posters as would be ideal.

They didn't all migrate...it would make sense to find ways to attract more...

But seems to me that on LP we had a set of 'moderators' who, at least to this poster's perspective', edited and cut posts they personally didn't agree with, and with no reasonable explanation...we asked for a more open and transparent, less biased system...and I think we've gotten that...

I'd suggest that there's a relatively new phenomenon on forums, the really egregious trolling and flaming. I'd sure like to have a space where we can talk about issues with a minimum of such.

Yep. A moderator that moderated what he didn’t like. Personally, I don’t like a moderator that is a partisan participant. Like having a player be the ref.

Call your own fouls?!?!? There's always a few dudes you cant trust in those games.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 1:54 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 1:41 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:52 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:45 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:31 am

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:21 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:14 am How many posters do you have here? You have a handful of people who go back and forth (and spend way too much time wallowing in the sky is falling and nothing is right world). Of that handful how many don't like OS's persona? 80-90%? This is not a level playing field and posters are way too trigger happy to take shots at OS, there is no question about that. I'm not a left-right, D-R person but right here you can see how the more left and D folks who claim moral and ethical superiority are real quick to jump on and be nasty to those who disagree or are of a different opinion. This is as plain to see as the noses on your faces boys.

Is this just an observation, or do you have a remedy? Should people who have a difference of opinion refrain from voicing it when OS opines? Should OS not opine? What is your plan?

Of course it's an observation (a years long one at that). Nope, no one should refrain from or not opine. I'm not interested in coming up with a remedy and have no plan to do so.
When it was LP and there were many, many more posters (and some pretty darn sharp ones at that) things didn't go down the way they do here where it's a 9 v 1 and everybody pile on game. The discussions were much better there, was a much broader base and much less gang mentality. Jus' sayin'.

I'd like to see many more posters on here as well, would make for a richer conversation, even more information flow. But that should be primarily focused on more lax focused posters, participating actively there...some % will decide to participate in these other forums, but we definitely don't have as many lax posters as would be ideal.

They didn't all migrate...it would make sense to find ways to attract more...

But seems to me that on LP we had a set of 'moderators' who, at least to this poster's perspective', edited and cut posts they personally didn't agree with, and with no reasonable explanation...we asked for a more open and transparent, less biased system...and I think we've gotten that...

I'd suggest that there's a relatively new phenomenon on forums, the really egregious trolling and flaming. I'd sure like to have a space where we can talk about issues with a minimum of such.

Yep. A moderator that moderated what he didn’t like. Personally, I don’t like a moderator that is a partisan participant. Like having a player be the ref.

Call your own fouls?!?!? There's always a few dudes you cant trust in those games.

I was going to call one of my old teammates just last week and ask him if he was waiting to call a foul on a shot he took against me 30 years ago! He was notorious for waiting on the make or miss before calling a foul. Where we played, if you called foul and the shot went in, the bucket didn’t count. I had a lot of arguments when I started playing in the ‘burbs where the bucket counted. He was drafted by Hawks and lives in Alpharetta now. He had a couple of cups of coffee in the NBA.

Call it what they want, but it really boils down to gaslighting and borderlines online bullying.

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 1:09 pm It's not that easy, a fan, where did all the independents go?
How many people do you really have left here? Not everyone
is a D or R but for the most part all you have left here is Ds
and left leaning posters. I think a lot of people just got tired
of the echo chamber and piling on.

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:09 pm

Call it what they want, but it really boils down to gaslighting and borderlines online bullying.

Sign of the times:

Merriam-Webster, America's oldest dictionary publisher, has just chosen "gaslighting" as its word of the year.

Searches on its website for the word have spiked by 1,740% in 2022, according to the company.

Gaslighting is the act or practice of grossly misleading someone, especially for one's own advantage.

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 1:29 pm The sad thing is? I can give you a plan to move our country forward using CONSERVATIVE principles in five seconds. The Republican party can't do that. And the supposedly conservative posters here can't either.

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:56 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:44 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:14 am How many posters do you have here? You have a handful of people who go back and forth (and spend way too much time wallowing in the sky is falling and nothing is right world). Of that handful how many don't like OS's persona? 80-90%? This is not a level playing field and posters are way too trigger happy to take shots at OS, there is no question about that. I'm not a left-right, D-R person but right here you can see how the more left and D folks who claim moral and ethical superiority are real quick to jump on and be nasty to those who disagree or are of a different opinion. This is as plain to see as the noses on your faces boys.

I am one.

Yes, which you have clearly stated previously. Your distaste for salty clouds your thinking, your immediate inclination, pretty much regardless of what he says, is to come up with some sort of nasty sarcastic barb.

HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:21 pm 3) The Republican party can't do ANYTHING. Trump broke it. The old GOP that was the champion of Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex and Global Trade took an ice-pick to the head from Bill Clinton and the DNC who pandered better. I go on about a blue collar GOP because it is what I hope will happen - but I know it won't. The Bush/Cheney/Romney wing of the party can't conceive of a world that isn't the "old" GOP and has instead chosen to get sloppy seconds on the payouts from Wall St and the MIC while being effectively controlled opposition. They have given up on being a party of ideas or even ideals - even bad ones.

4) These boards were a lot more fun when we had Trump to make fun of (CNN says "same"). They were more thoughtful (as you point out) when folks seemed thoughtfully engaged in criticizing Obama. I can't remember if I lurked around the politics boards before Obama.

5) Left/Right/Center whatever - I would argue the more important political scale is (or is becoming) your view on the topics of centralization and globalization.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:43 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:21 pm 3) The Republican party can't do ANYTHING. Trump broke it. The old GOP that was the champion of Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex and Global Trade took an ice-pick to the head from Bill Clinton and the DNC who pandered better. I go on about a blue collar GOP because it is what I hope will happen - but I know it won't. The Bush/Cheney/Romney wing of the party can't conceive of a world that isn't the "old" GOP and has instead chosen to get sloppy seconds on the payouts from Wall St and the MIC while being effectively controlled opposition. They have given up on being a party of ideas or even ideals - even bad ones.

4) These boards were a lot more fun when we had Trump to make fun of (CNN says "same"). They were more thoughtful (as you point out) when folks seemed thoughtfully engaged in criticizing Obama. I can't remember if I lurked around the politics boards before Obama.

5) Left/Right/Center whatever - I would argue the more important political scale is (or is becoming) your view on the topics of centralization and globalization.

+1 yep ! the (D)'s are transforming too. " W " took a lot of heat in the LP Water Cooler, but everyone kept their sense of humor & rolled with it.

HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:58 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 9:55 am BTW, HooDat, I don't think you were being "lazy" about these words. I think you're sincerely concerned about the words being misunderstood and causing greater division, less "unity".

Even more than that, I agree that the words are being used by some in the GOP as: at worst a not so subtle wink to the racist elements of the party; or at best a tacit acknowledgement that those voters exists and trying to keep them in the fold.

Yup, we agree.

Since I assumed (never ass u me ) that part was obvious, I was pointing out my fear that there are people attempting to start with the historic background in "nationalism" you describe, but then take it a step further to nudge the argument in the direction of doing away with nations. In other words attempting to morph your reasonable wariness of nationalism that becomes exaggerated into a distrust of nations altogether.

I find this part above quite fascinating. Is there any single poster on here who comes close to espousing that we should do away with nations? Even Brooklyn, with whom I clash pretty regularly, doesn't hold such a view, best I can tell.

So, is that concern not a red herring?

Where does this notion come from?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 9:55 am The "America First" (words that independently have benign meaning) movement has deep roots in ultra-nationalist fascism and should be rejected by "patriotic" Americans who actually believe in American ideals. Disagree on various decisions internationally, the use of soft or hard power in specific situations, but lets unify under the notion that the world is not zero sum...

Here is where it gets interesting (and complicated) to me.

If your starting point is on the spot labeled "America First" there are a lot of directions you can go. One is certainly ultra-nationalist, although I am not sure where fascism comes into play.

The America First movement in our history was both isolationist and, later, openly antisemitic. It was filled with people who supported/admired Hitler's rise, admired fascism. And made common cause with the KKK and Jim Crow proponents, and was a very anti-immigrant. Charles Lindbergh was one of The America First Committee's most famous members.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... st/514037/

In fact, I see the danger of fascism being far more acute under the globalist umbrella - or at least the current hybrid globalist system that places global corporations at the head of the table, using their power and money to get the political responses, laws and regulations they want. Another direction you can go is to build systems and infrastructure that supports the working class citizens of your country. Rather than spend money on military dalliances, spend it on those schools afan wants to run or on a better social safety net.

This is more interesting, the notion that being an internationalist, supporting international organizations, rules, laws, and trade to address global challenges, fostering a more prosperous, more peaceful, safer world...is actually driven by "global corporations at the head of the table"...I almost feel like I'm back in one of my Gov courses in the '70's with lefty professors assigning all sorts of books declaiming the perils of multinationals...Very left wing, anti-capitalist stuff...seems to me that the power of multinationals cannot be constrained adequately by individual nation states, but rather needs international rules of the road, with international governmental cooperation to regulate...

and hey, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that this notion of world controlled by corporations sounds very close to the QAnon cabal, which at its roots is the antisemitic "globalist" cabal accusations of old...again, this is the stuff that dog whistles quite effectively to the "christian nationalist/white nationalist" set among us...

I believe (perhaps naively) that the vast majority of people sympathetic to the call for "America First" view it as just another way of expressing sentiments like: "made in America" or "look for the union label" that were prevalent in the 70's and 80's.

I dunno whether you are naive though I suspect not, but rather that lots and lots of people who think "America First" is as benign as 'made in America' etc are naive as to what lies beneath America First, fully understood by the fascists, however they may wish to brand themselves.

I also wonder if it is right to assume that the world isn't in fact a zero sum game. Certainly if you look at the world we currently live in (or have any realistic chance of building for ourselves) it would be quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that it is indeed a zero sum world.

I don't think that's "reasonable" at all. By nearly any measure the people of the world are far more prosperous and healthy than at any point in history, clearly zero sum is not what's been happening. Yes, there are disparities in who the highest 'winners' are and the magnitude of their 'win', but the overall trajectory has been remarkably successful in an interconnected, global economy.

The shift in economic distribution that has occurred over our lifetimes would support that conclusion. I have come to know several people who have accumulated absurd levels of wealth (measured in billions) and even more that have a net worth north of $500 million; every single one of them live their lives as though it is a zero sum game - some will even tell you as much.

[b]Absolutely. Lots of very wealthy people are greedy, 'zero-sum' bastards, no doubt...in their lifetimes. But the system that enables the tremendous individual wealth accumulation has not been zero-sum on a macro basis.[/b]

At a minimum I think it is worth questioning the economic theories and certitudes of economists (based on assuming away friction costs and thinking at the "macro" level) that have led us to where we are economically in the US. Put another way - tell the workers in Detroit, or the former store owners in small town America that it isn't a zero sum game. It sure was for them.....

Yes, people have made decisions and continue to make decisions on an individual basis, as to where they live, what education they pursue, what profession they choose, that reward them more or less in an evolving economy...this is our capitalist system that depends on millions and millions of such decisions to be made in order to be more and more productive (the opposite of zero sum). We're not in a communist world in which these decisions do not matter (none has ever really existed, at least not at scale). Why? Because it ain't the way human beings work best, in aggregate.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:35 pm This is a super interesting post; thanks. Comments in blue.

HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:58 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 9:55 am BTW, HooDat, I don't think you were being "lazy" about these words. I think you're sincerely concerned about the words being misunderstood and causing greater division, less "unity".

Even more than that, I agree that the words are being used by some in the GOP as: at worst a not so subtle wink to the racist elements of the party; or at best a tacit acknowledgement that those voters exists and trying to keep them in the fold.

Yup, we agree.

Since I assumed (never ass u me ) that part was obvious, I was pointing out my fear that there are people attempting to start with the historic background in "nationalism" you describe, but then take it a step further to nudge the argument in the direction of doing away with nations. In other words attempting to morph your reasonable wariness of nationalism that becomes exaggerated into a distrust of nations altogether.

I find this part above quite fascinating. Is there any single poster on here who comes close to espousing that we should do away with nations? Even Brooklyn, with whom I clash pretty regularly, doesn't hold such a view, best I can tell.

So, is that concern not a red herring?

Where does this notion come from?

It did not come from the posters on here, although below you yourself reference "the power of multinationals cannot be constrained adequately by individual nation states, but rather needs international rules of the road, with international governmental cooperation to regulate". Sounds a bit like a big step toward weakening the importance of nations. But, the concern comes from my observations of international diplomacy and behavior, and watching the power of international treaties play a larger and larger role in dictating local issues. It also comes from understanding the perverse appeal of power, and once you run a country, the next high is running a continent... Don't get me wrong I understand the benefits of trade and treaties etc... but, I also understand the benefits of local determination and the unique local cultures that it produces.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 9:55 am The "America First" (words that independently have benign meaning) movement has deep roots in ultra-nationalist fascism and should be rejected by "patriotic" Americans who actually believe in American ideals. Disagree on various decisions internationally, the use of soft or hard power in specific situations, but lets unify under the notion that the world is not zero sum...

Here is where it gets interesting (and complicated) to me.

If your starting point is on the spot labeled "America First" there are a lot of directions you can go. One is certainly ultra-nationalist, although I am not sure where fascism comes into play.

The America First movement in our history was both isolationist and, later, openly antisemitic. It was filled with people who supported/admired Hitler's rise, admired fascism. And made common cause with the KKK and Jim Crow proponents, and was a very anti-immigrant. Charles Lindbergh was one of The America First Committee's most famous members.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... st/514037/


You are absolutely correct about the lineage of "America First", and I suspect someone responsible for putting the phrase forward fully understood the history too, but I do not believe that 8 out of 10 people on the street do. That is a pretty big deep dive to get to that objection - when the more innocent (or naive) interpretation is most plausible for the vast majority of voters. Kind of like one of those conspiracy theories those 70's gov professors of yours might have put forward.

In fact, I see the danger of fascism being far more acute under the globalist umbrella - or at least the current hybrid globalist system that places global corporations at the head of the table, using their power and money to get the political responses, laws and regulations they want. Another direction you can go is to build systems and infrastructure that supports the working class citizens of your country. Rather than spend money on military dalliances, spend it on those schools afan wants to run or on a better social safety net.

This is more interesting, the notion that being an internationalist, supporting international organizations, rules, laws, and trade to address global challenges, fostering a more prosperous, more peaceful, safer world...is actually driven by "global corporations at the head of the table"...I almost feel like I'm back in one of my Gov courses in the '70's with lefty professors assigning all sorts of books declaiming the perils of multinationals...Very left wing, anti-capitalist stuff...seems to me that the power of multinationals cannot be constrained adequately by individual nation states, but rather needs international rules of the road, with international governmental cooperation to regulate...

and hey, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that this notion of world controlled by corporations sounds very close to the QAnon cabal, which at its roots is the antisemitic "globalist" cabal accusations of old...again, this is the stuff that dog whistles quite effectively to the "christian nationalist/white nationalist" set among us...

I have worked for several of those global corporations that seem to have seats at the head of the table. You can try to shade me with allusions to Qanon all you want, but the bottom line is you don't seem to understand how policy is made. The governments don't control the corporations, it is the other way around. The regulators can't keep up with the fire power of the multinationals and global banks - they look to industry types to help write the rules - I wonder who they favor. When something does go wrong, they (the companies and the relevant regulatory body) pick a scapegoat or two and move on ~ the most blatant being the 2008 financial crisis. It is a rough game, but the stakes are high. Multinationals are the ones who WANT a global government - one set of rules and one set of regulators to manipulate, makes it that much easier to do business.

When you are worried about the extreme centralization of power with autocratic control over the economy and social activities - yes I would worry about granting too much power to a governmental body with global ambitions


I believe (perhaps naively) that the vast majority of people sympathetic to the call for "America First" view it as just another way of expressing sentiments like: "made in America" or "look for the union label" that were prevalent in the 70's and 80's.

I dunno whether you are naive though I suspect not, but rather that lots and lots of people who think "America First" is as benign as 'made in America' etc are naive as to what lies beneath America First, fully understood by the fascists, however they may wish to brand themselves.

I also wonder if it is right to assume that the world isn't in fact a zero sum game. Certainly if you look at the world we currently live in (or have any realistic chance of building for ourselves) it would be quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that it is indeed a zero sum world.

I don't think that's "reasonable" at all. By nearly any measure the people of the world are far more prosperous and healthy than at any point in history, clearly zero sum is not what's been happening. Yes, there are disparities in who the highest 'winners' are and the magnitude of their 'win', but the overall trajectory has been remarkably successful in an interconnected, global economy.

the near elimination of poverty from the face of the globe is primarily attributable to the availability of cheap energy - mostly in the migration from burning manure/wood/coal to burning natural gas. While access to cheap energy is a key part of the interconnected global economy - the rest of globalization is an economic trade-off that sacrifices local (expensive) labor for cheap (developing country) labor to benefit capital holders. THAT is zero sum. It turns out that hiring worker in poor countries is cheaper than owning slaves in the US - who knew?

The shift in economic distribution that has occurred over our lifetimes would support that conclusion. I have come to know several people who have accumulated absurd levels of wealth (measured in billions) and even more that have a net worth north of $500 million; every single one of them live their lives as though it is a zero sum game - some will even tell you as much.

[b]Absolutely. Lots of very wealthy people are greedy, 'zero-sum' bastards, no doubt...in their lifetimes. But the system that enables the tremendous individual wealth accumulation has not been zero-sum on a macro basis.[/b]

At a minimum I think it is worth questioning the economic theories and certitudes of economists (based on assuming away friction costs and thinking at the "macro" level) that have led us to where we are economically in the US. Put another way - tell the workers in Detroit, or the former store owners in small town America that it isn't a zero sum game. It sure was for them.....

Yes, people have made decisions and continue to make decisions on an individual basis, as to where they live, what education they pursue, what profession they choose, that reward them more or less in an evolving economy...this is our capitalist system that depends on millions and millions of such decisions to be made in order to be more and more productive (the opposite of zero sum). We're not in a communist world in which these decisions do not matter (none has ever really existed, at least not at scale). Why? Because it ain't the way human beings work best, in aggregate.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:01 pm I got on these boards at LP in reaction to the "rantings" of a poster named Sore & Old. Just wasn't going to allow that sort of mis- and dis-information to go unchallenged. OK, he would post things under the guise of "opinion", but boy-o-boy...those opinions really got me riled up. That and the depredations perpetrated on the Executive Branch by Shrub and the real president, Dick Cheney.

Those were the days.

The inflammatory 6foot, the "duck and run" Tech37, the various iterations of the Petey Persona...these total partisans where people that WANTED to think of themselves as moderates or independents, but were anything but. Being exposed for that evidently was too much for them.

Come in here, make your case, and talk it out. If you can't, well, bu-bye...

..

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:01 pm I got on these boards at LP in reaction to the "rantings" of a poster named Sore & Old. Just wasn't going to allow that sort of mis- and dis-information to go unchallenged. OK, he would post things under the guise of "opinion", but boy-o-boy...those opinions really got me riled up. That and the depredations perpetrated on the Executive Branch by Shrub and the real president, Dick Cheney.

Those were the days.

The inflammatory 6foot, the "duck and run" Tech37, the various iterations of the Petey Persona...these total partisans where people that WANTED to think of themselves as moderates or independents, but were anything but. Being exposed for that evidently was too much for them.

Come in here, make your case, and talk it out. If you can't, well, bu-bye...

..

HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:17 pm I will adapt your formatting - I like it. My comments in green

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:35 pm This is a super interesting post; thanks. Comments in blue.

HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:58 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 9:55 am BTW, HooDat, I don't think you were being "lazy" about these words. I think you're sincerely concerned about the words being misunderstood and causing greater division, less "unity".

Even more than that, I agree that the words are being used by some in the GOP as: at worst a not so subtle wink to the racist elements of the party; or at best a tacit acknowledgement that those voters exists and trying to keep them in the fold.

Yup, we agree.

Since I assumed (never ass u me ) that part was obvious, I was pointing out my fear that there are people attempting to start with the historic background in "nationalism" you describe, but then take it a step further to nudge the argument in the direction of doing away with nations. In other words attempting to morph your reasonable wariness of nationalism that becomes exaggerated into a distrust of nations altogether.

I find this part above quite fascinating. Is there any single poster on here who comes close to espousing that we should do away with nations? Even Brooklyn, with whom I clash pretty regularly, doesn't hold such a view, best I can tell.

So, is that concern not a red herring?

Where does this notion come from?

It did not come from the posters on here, although below you yourself reference "the power of multinationals cannot be constrained adequately by individual nation states, but rather needs international rules of the road, with international governmental cooperation to regulate". Sounds a bit like a big step toward weakening the importance of nations. But, the concern comes from my observations of international diplomacy and behavior, and watching the power of international treaties play a larger and larger role in dictating local issues. It also comes from understanding the perverse appeal of power, and once you run a country, the next high is running a continent... Don't get me wrong I understand the benefits of trade and treaties etc... but, I also understand the benefits of local determination and the unique local cultures that it produces.

Yes, we don't live in a world in which isolation is viable, whether at the state, national, or international level, and in which it makes no more sense to think that each nation should entirely offset the power of multinationals than it does that each state should be able to do so...yes, the largest markets, the wealthiest countries, have disproportionately more power to regulate multinationals, and like California within the US, they do throw their weight around...but having common standards, rules of the road, agreement on 'fences', makes everyone more efficient...which increases the size of the pie for all. A little pushing and pulling around the edges, fine, but working cooperatively to increase the pie is very beneficial to those most well positioned to compete...like the US. In our selfish, self-interest, we should seek to encourage more such cooperation, shaped as we want the world to evolve, favoring prosperity and freedom for an ever greater portion of the world...

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 9:55 am The "America First" (words that independently have benign meaning) movement has deep roots in ultra-nationalist fascism and should be rejected by "patriotic" Americans who actually believe in American ideals. Disagree on various decisions internationally, the use of soft or hard power in specific situations, but lets unify under the notion that the world is not zero sum...

Here is where it gets interesting (and complicated) to me.

If your starting point is on the spot labeled "America First" there are a lot of directions you can go. One is certainly ultra-nationalist, although I am not sure where fascism comes into play.

[color]The America First movement in our history was both isolationist and, later, openly antisemitic. It was filled with people who supported/admired Hitler's rise, admired fascism. And made common cause with the KKK and Jim Crow proponents, and was a very anti-immigrant. Charles Lindbergh was one of The America First Committee's most famous members.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... st/514037/
[/color]

You are absolutely correct about the lineage of "America First", and I suspect someone responsible for putting the phrase forward fully understood the history too, but I do not believe that 8 out of 10 people on the street do. That is a pretty big deep dive to get to that objection - when the more innocent (or naive) interpretation is most plausible for the vast majority of voters. Kind of like one of those conspiracy theories those 70's gov professors of yours might have put forward.

ok, so that's where I think you are indeed a bit naive, or perhaps pollyannish. I think a much, much larger portion than 80% of people think that way, indeed, I'd suggest that most Dems and most I'd don't see the phrase that way...and while I think there's a lot of willful ignorance among the GOP these days, a heck of a lot of it is simply a continuation of a large portion of American society over the generations, simply now coalesced under this MAGA banner...same folks believe the Big Lie.

In fact, I see the danger of fascism being far more acute under the globalist umbrella - or at least the current hybrid globalist system that places global corporations at the head of the table, using their power and money to get the political responses, laws and regulations they want. Another direction you can go is to build systems and infrastructure that supports the working class citizens of your country. Rather than spend money on military dalliances, spend it on those schools afan wants to run or on a better social safety net.

This is more interesting, the notion that being an internationalist, supporting international organizations, rules, laws, and trade to address global challenges, fostering a more prosperous, more peaceful, safer world...is actually driven by "global corporations at the head of the table"...I almost feel like I'm back in one of my Gov courses in the '70's with lefty professors assigning all sorts of books declaiming the perils of multinationals...Very left wing, anti-capitalist stuff...seems to me that the power of multinationals cannot be constrained adequately by individual nation states, but rather needs international rules of the road, with international governmental cooperation to regulate...

and hey, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that this notion of world controlled by corporations sounds very close to the QAnon cabal, which at its roots is the antisemitic "globalist" cabal accusations of old...again, this is the stuff that dog whistles quite effectively to the "christian nationalist/white nationalist" set among us...

I have worked for several of those global corporations that seem to have seats at the head of the table. You can try to shade me with allusions to Qanon all you want, but the bottom line is you don't seem to understand how policy is made. The governments don't control the corporations, it is the other way around. The regulators can't keep up with the fire power of the multinationals and global banks - they look to industry types to help write the rules - I wonder who they favor. When something does go wrong, they (the companies and the relevant regulatory body) pick a scapegoat or two and move on ~ the most blatant being the 2008 financial crisis. It is a rough game, but the stakes are high. Multinationals are the ones who WANT a global government - one set of rules and one set of regulators to manipulate, makes it that much easier to do business.

When you are worried about the extreme centralization of power with autocratic control over the economy and social activities - yes I would worry about granting too much power to a governmental body with global ambitions

I hear you, and I understand that multinationals want clear rules of the road, but I don't think they want autocracy any more than you or I.

I believe (perhaps naively) that the vast majority of people sympathetic to the call for "America First" view it as just another way of expressing sentiments like: "made in America" or "look for the union label" that were prevalent in the 70's and 80's.

I dunno whether you are naive though I suspect not, but rather that lots and lots of people who think "America First" is as benign as 'made in America' etc are naive as to what lies beneath America First, fully understood by the fascists, however they may wish to brand themselves.

I also wonder if it is right to assume that the world isn't in fact a zero sum game. Certainly if you look at the world we currently live in (or have any realistic chance of building for ourselves) it would be quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that it is indeed a zero sum world.

I don't think that's "reasonable" at all. By nearly any measure the people of the world are far more prosperous and healthy than at any point in history, clearly zero sum is not what's been happening. Yes, there are disparities in who the highest 'winners' are and the magnitude of their 'win', but the overall trajectory has been remarkably successful in an interconnected, global economy.

the near elimination of poverty from the face of the globe is primarily attributable to the availability of cheap energy - mostly in the migration from burning manure/wood/coal to burning natural gas. While access to cheap energy is a key part of the interconnected global economy - the rest of globalization is an economic trade-off that sacrifices local (expensive) labor for cheap (developing country) labor to benefit capital holders. THAT is zero sum. It turns out that hiring worker in poor countries is cheaper than owning slaves in the US - who knew?


Again, I think that's a load of nonsense..."cheap energy" is but one of many technological innovations.

The shift in economic distribution that has occurred over our lifetimes would support that conclusion. I have come to know several people who have accumulated absurd levels of wealth (measured in billions) and even more that have a net worth north of $500 million; every single one of them live their lives as though it is a zero sum game - some will even tell you as much.

[b]Absolutely. Lots of very wealthy people are greedy, 'zero-sum' bastards, no doubt...in their lifetimes. But the system that enables the tremendous individual wealth accumulation has not been zero-sum on a macro basis.[/b]

At a minimum I think it is worth questioning the economic theories and certitudes of economists (based on assuming away friction costs and thinking at the "macro" level) that have led us to where we are economically in the US. Put another way - tell the workers in Detroit, or the former store owners in small town America that it isn't a zero sum game. It sure was for them.....

Yes, people have made decisions and continue to make decisions on an individual basis, as to where they live, what education they pursue, what profession they choose, that reward them more or less in an evolving economy...this is our capitalist system that depends on millions and millions of such decisions to be made in order to be more and more productive (the opposite of zero sum). We're not in a communist world in which these decisions do not matter (none has ever really existed, at least not at scale). Why? Because it ain't the way human beings work best, in aggregate.

I just can't get behind the "learn to code" movement. Real live policy decisions were made at the behest of pin-headed economists who's formulas at best ignore the "friction costs" of economic trade-offs or more likely didn't give two figs about how their policies would impact working class people in the US how they would rear-end them just at a stage in their lives when it is too late to do anything about it.

I fit right into the globalist world - I have the right pedigrees, the right diplomas, the right job history, have worked for the right multi-national corporations with offices and employees in all the right globally powerful cities. Globalization was MADE for me and the life choices I have made. It just so happens that the cultural anthropology minor in me loves local culture. And the good in me wants the best for my fellow man. I love the unique lessons and arts and viewpoints that you get from cultures that haven't been whitewashed by WalMart or the Four Seasons.

I also think anyone lucky enough to be born in the US should be able to get a high school degree and either through community college or on the job apprenticeships/training raise a family in safety and a reasonable level of comfort. I wish the same for everyone everywhere, but the US has the resources and the capital to make it happen - our leaders simply choose not to because they would rather "invest" that money into blowing up people in other countries because the payback period is better.

I agree with you 100% that people do not work best in communist (centralized planning) governmental structures. I also believe there is room for compassion or at least a modicum of Noblesse oblige

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:23 pm Alright this rainbow stuff gots to stop even if it’s better discourse than most on here!