Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I'm not saying I believe the People will rise up together in a Glorious Revolution. I'm saying that we are headed for an economy which is subject to isolated, multiple cases of mass violence and disruption. Think Ferguson on a bigger scale, only with a poverty and hunger focus instead of a racial focus.

As for having the downtrodden effect change by voting for a candidate who isn't already bought and paid for by corporate interests, I would suggest more that it will need to be a large enough group of people who believe that a progressive agenda is needed to counteract the politicians bought and paid for by corporate interests. After all, the downtrodden will have been largely disenfranchised to the extent they aren't already by the next election cycle.

Alternatively, perhaps we're living the dream but don't realize it.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Alternatively, perhaps we're living the dream but don't realize it.

I'm sure a lot of people are better off. But the people who aren't better off are becoming consistently worse off:

Of course, not all the arrows point in a positive direction, particularly after the past few years. The number of Americans living in poverty has increased over the past decade, after a long period of decline. Wealth inequality has returned to levels last seen in the roaring '20s.

And as for a candidate who might actually bring some needed progressive pressure, maybe we will have one after all.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Don't give a shit about you sounding like a dickhead. More power to you. It's the feeling of superiority that emanates from all your posts that's the issue.

TM

I love that you are here.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My point was more that framing it in Affleck/Maher terms didn't make a lot of sense.

She has lots of interesting points about life as a woman in Pakistan; there are other interesting discussions about life as an muslim, even a feminist muslim, elsewhere.

And, TM, yes, sometimes I sound like a dickhead. You too. Welcome to the PB.

Perhaps "Helpful Dickheads" is our next thread title.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I love that you are here.

A rare instance where I will agree with Hank.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Alternatively, perhaps we're living the dream but don't realize it.

"But-- but--- Everyone has a toaster now! And, uh-- Penicillin!

Nobody's dying of the Plague anymore. What do you have to say about that?"

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody's dying of the Plague anymore. What do you have to say about that?"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...c-plague-death

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm not saying I believe the People will rise up together in a Glorious Revolution. I'm saying that we are headed for an economy which is subject to isolated, multiple cases of mass violence and disruption.

Oh, shit. Well if that's what you're saying, dude -- We're already there.

Think Ferguson on a bigger scale, only with a poverty and hunger focus instead of a racial focus.

Read your Eric Hoffer. The downtrodden are all about surviving. They don't have time for mass violent upheavals until the situation is so dire there is no other option. Movements are typically started by leaders hailing from the upper classes. YMMV, but being upper middle class myself, I don't see anyone I know in this cohort who's interested in leading any movement of any kind. We're all too fucking busy in the rat race.

As for having the downtrodden effect change by voting for a candidate who isn't already bought and paid for by corporate interests, I would suggest more that it will need to be a large enough group of people who believe that a progressive agenda is needed to counteract the politicians bought and paid for by corporate interests.

There will be no progressive revolution. We cannot afford that. If there is any change, it will come from tech allowing people to disrupt the status quo even further. And it may come from millennials who, after having been robbed of the ability to move up the income and class ladder, decide to walk away from the game entirely (eschew consumption, use alternative currencies, delay family formation, etc.). But there is never going to be a progressive Great Society. That Utopian boat sank long ago.

After all, the downtrodden will have been largely disenfranchised to the extent they aren't already by the next election cycle.

They'll be placated, their attentions diverted, lied to, and compelled to pick the lesser of two evils. We're going to see a slow management of ever diminishing quality of life... to borrow an econ term, a systematic effort to guarantee Joe Sixpack feels no free fall, but instead a series of "soft landings."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...c-plague-death

whifferooski

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

A rare instance where I will agree with Hank.

I try to bring people together. Namaste and Kumbayah.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

An oligarchy should be run by one with experience in managing this sort of thing.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

An oligarchy should be run by one with experience in managing this sort of thing.

Or, a few disaffected former members of the middle or upper middle class could lead the disaffected to burn the whole fucking thing down, to revisit a theme from earlier in the week.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

So this economist who worked on the ACA is in trouble for saying American voter "stupidity" forced the architects of the bill to disguise the tax increase it levies on the young as a mandate. Otherwise, Americans would not support the ACA.

If I'm understanding him correctly, the argument is, "If we told voters the mandate was a tax, which it is (and which SCOTUS agreed it is), Americans would stupidly reject the ACA."

So it's "stupid" to reject a tax increase?

Aren't the more accurate possible descriptives, "selfish," "skeptical," "rational," or "not seeing beyond the short term"? You can call a man who refuses to have his taxes increased a lot of things. Stupid isn't one of them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So this economist who worked on the ACA is in trouble for saying American voter "stupidity" forced the architects of the bill to disguise the tax increase it levies on the young as a mandate. Otherwise, Americans would not support the ACA.

If I'm understanding him correctly, the argument is, "If we told voters the mandate was a tax, which it is (and which SCOTUS agreed it is), Americans would stupidly reject the ACA."

So it's "stupid" to reject a tax increase?

Aren't the more accurate possible descriptives, "selfish," "skeptical," "rational," or "not seeing beyond the short term"? You can call a man who refuses to have his taxes increased a lot of things. Stupid isn't one of them.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-its-evil.html

eta: also, http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...rubergate.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Peter Thiel on the NSA:

…I have a slightly different cut on the Snowden revelations. I think it shows the NSA more as the Keystone Cops than as Big Brother. What is striking to me is how little James Bond-like stuff was going on and how little they did with all this information. That’s why I think, in some ways, the NSA is more in this anti-technological zone where they don’t know what to do with the data they find. So they just hoover up all the data, all over the world. I think it was news to Obama that he was tapping into [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel’s cell phone.
One way to think about this is that if the NSA bureaucracy actually knew what they were doing, they would probably need way less information. What’s shocking about Snowden is how much information they had and how little they did with it.