We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What does he say?

Among myriad other points:

1. Protectionism doesn’t work;
2. Expect a lot more protectionism;
3. Globalism as currently practiced increases inequality exponentially;
4. Winners in globalism don’t care and won’t do anything to change the system providing them such a huge windfall;
4. Trump is a demagogue we should have seen coming a decade ago;
5. Cultural civil wars are going to take place in every nation as a result of inequality;
6. Lesser developed nations are going to face awful circumstances in the battle between globalism and nationalism/protectionism;
7. Developed nations will have it a bit better, but not much;
8. Automation and environmental crises are imminent gas on the fire in re: 1-8;
9. We’ll need radical policies like UBI to face a future where 50% of jobs are gone;
10. The current political squabbles focusing on individual leaders and social policy differences between the parties are robbing us of time and resources better spent on serious solutions to the crises;
11. Our political systems are hopelessly dysfunctional and pretty much co-opted by small politically connected or wealthy interests.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ian is the Shahanshah of the Globalists, the Emperor Globalist to whom the globalist Kings bow down. When some establishment corporatist says "I need to hire me a globalist to consult on international relations or trade", Ian's Eurasia Group is the first call they make.

He’s pro-trade, of course, but quite critical of his own view. Very sober and middle of the road assessments.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What the fuck is the actual issue you two are whining about? Are either of you trying to imply that Weinstein didn't commit actual fucking sexual assault? Or is your point that the fact that he used his massive power to gain sexual favors and in fact crushed people's careers who didn't submit isn't really "assault?" Are you saying the #MeToo movement is less legitimate because people are assholes and one of the faces of the movement happens to be a hypocritical one? Or are you just fucking whining generally about political correctness being out of control?

I don't see what the issue is. Weinstein is a fucking lunatic who assaulted people and did tons of terrible shit. He is being held to account. Argento was one of his victims. The fact that she seemed to also do awful shit doesn't somehow eliminate the evil shit Weinstein did. And she is currently being dragged and held to account as well. How the fuck is this all supposed to work in your eyes?

If you assaulted someone with a bat 10 years ago and got away with it and I beat the fuck out of you the next time I see you, does that mean you can't complain about that beating?

TM

I thought Less was criticizing GGG's suggestion that Argento's behavior was excusable because she'd been previously compelled into sex by Weinsten. I think that's what Less and GGG meant. I could be wrong.

The suggestion she gets a pass because Harvey abused her is not without some merit. The argument abuse breeds abuse is solid. But it's a ridiculous stretch here. Giving a blowjob to save your career and being sexually exploited while underage are not the same thing.

HOWEVER... I haven't read the whole story about the guy with whom Argento had sex. But he was 17. At 17, many of us were already having sex. I mean, maybe he's a victim of a sort... but really? Really? To any male on this board, If Asia Argento asked you to have sex when you were 17... If she pulled a Mrs. Robinson on you... Would you seriously, deep down, feel abused? Or would you perhaps think, Jesus Loves Me! (And then hope with all your might you can last more than two minutes.*)


______
* Premature Ejaculator in Chief

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Among myriad other points:

Bold words are mine.

1. Protectionism doesn’t work;

That depends on what "work" means. If you are less worried about the economy as a whole and more about the health of certain American industries -- autos, steel, coal -- then what Trump is trying seems to be "working".

2. Expect a lot more protectionism;
3. Globalism as currently practiced increases inequality exponentially;

The phrase "as currently practiced" has more to do with domestic politics than with economic arrangements. The Nordic countries have economies that are well-integrated with the global economy and also have social programs that tax the well-off to provide services to everyone, reducing inequality.

4. Winners in globalism don’t care and won’t do anything to change the system providing them such a huge windfall;

Duh. There are multiple games going on at once, and some are zero-sum.

4. Trump is a demagogue we should have seen coming a decade ago;

5. Cultural civil wars are going to take place in every nation as a result of inequality;

Not seeing this. Why does inequality drive cultural civil wars?

6. Lesser developed nations are going to face awful circumstances in the battle between globalism and nationalism/protectionism;

Why worse than the last 50 years?

7. Developed nations will have it a bit better, but not much;
8. Automation and environmental crises are imminent gas on the fire in re: 1-8;
9. We’ll need radical policies like UBI to face a future where 50% of jobs are gone;

Why are 50% of the jobs going to be gone?

10. The current political squabbles focusing on individual leaders and social policy differences between the parties are robbing us of time and resources better spent on serious solutions to the crises;

No kidding. Some games are zero-sum, and they complicate the non-zero-sum games.

11. Our political systems are hopelessly dysfunctional and pretty much co-opted by small politically connected or wealthy interests.

Sounds like they are not "dysfunctional" from the perspective of small, politically connected or wealthy interests.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I thought Less was criticizing GGG's suggestion that Argento's behavior was excusable because she'd been previously compelled into sex by Weinsten. I think that's what Less and GGG meant. I could be wrong.

Sure. And Less was just initially curious about whether Argento was being reasonable.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The suggestion she gets a pass because Harvey abused her is not without some merit.

No it isn't. One can understand that there are reasons behind abuse that involve the abused become abusers. But no one gets a fucking pass. And she is currently not getting a pass.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But it's a ridiculous stretch here. Giving a blowjob to save your career and being sexually exploited while underage are not the same thing.

Absolutely no one is saying that they are the same thing. Are you attempting to set up another straw man conversation?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

HOWEVER... I haven't read the whole story about the guy with whom Argento had sex. But he was 17. At 17, many of us were already having sex. I mean, maybe he's a victim of a sort... but really? Really? To any male on this board, If Asia Argento asked you to have sex when you were 17... If she pulled a Mrs. Robinson on you... Would you seriously, deep down, feel abused? Or would you perhaps think, Jesus Loves Me! (And then hope with all your might you can last more than two minutes.*)

Ah, yes. The old, "Boys are lucky if hot women statutory rape them" bit.

This needs to stop. We pick an age of consent because we have determined that people under that age do not have the capacity to agree to sex. If you want to argue 17 isn't the right age, okay. But let's move beyond this ridiculous theme that young boys are lucky if they are abused by good looking women. The fact that so many people see it this way makes it almost impossible for them to actually come forward. They may think it was a great thing, but, as I understand it, they often have different feelings about it as they age. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't often completely screwed up. It's either abuse or it's not. We don't say, "That girl shouldn't complain. The dude who took advantage of her is an athlete!"

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I thought Less was criticizing GGG's suggestion that Argento's behavior was excusable because she'd been previously compelled into sex by Weinsten. I think that's what Less and GGG meant. I could be wrong.

The suggestion she gets a pass because Harvey abused her is not without some merit. The argument abuse breeds abuse is solid. But it's a ridiculous stretch here. Giving a blowjob to save your career and being sexually exploited while underage are not the same thing.

HOWEVER... I haven't read the whole story about the guy with whom Argento had sex. But he was 17. At 17, many of us were already having sex. I mean, maybe he's a victim of a sort... but really? Really? To any male on this board, If Asia Argento asked you to have sex when you were 17... If she pulled a Mrs. Robinson on you... Would you seriously, deep down, feel abused? Or would you perhaps think, Jesus Loves Me! (And then hope with all your might you can last more than two minutes.*)


______
* Premature Ejaculator in Chief

Just to be clear, I didn't excuse anyone's behavior, I noted that there is often a correlation between being abused and later abusing people. I do not have the view that Rose McGowan, having being abused, is now free to go do it to someone else. I can't believe you typed words that could suggest that.

As to the rest of your argument on what constitutes abuse, can I say, ewwwwwww. Just ewwwwww.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Sure. And Less was just initially curious about whether Argento was being reasonable.

No it isn't. One can understand that there are reasons behind abuse that involve the abused become abusers. But no one gets a fucking pass. And she is currently not getting a pass.

Absolutely no one is saying that they are the same thing. Are you attempting to set up another straw man conversation?

Ah, yes. The old, "Boys are lucky if hot women statutory rape them" bit.

This needs to stop. We pick an age of consent because we have determined that people under that age do not have the capacity to agree to sex. If you want to argue 17 isn't the right age, okay. But let's move beyond this ridiculous theme that young boys are lucky if they are abused by good looking women. The fact that so many people see it this way makes it almost impossible for them to actually come forward. They may think it was a great thing, but, as I understand it, they often have different feelings about it as they age. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't often completely screwed up. It's either abuse or it's not. We don't say, "That girl shouldn't complain. The dude who took advantage of her is an athlete!"

TM

I should have just given you my proxy.

Nonetheless, can I say one more time about Sebby's post, ewwwwww.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Bold words are mine.

1. Protectionism doesn’t work;

That depends on what "work" means. If you are less worried about the economy as a whole and more about the health of certain American industries -- autos, steel, coal -- then what Trump is trying seems to be "working".

2. Expect a lot more protectionism;
3. Globalism as currently practiced increases inequality exponentially;

The phrase "as currently practiced" has more to do with domestic politics than with economic arrangements. The Nordic countries have economies that are well-integrated with the global economy and also have social programs that tax the well-off to provide services to everyone, reducing inequality.

4. Winners in globalism don’t care and won’t do anything to change the system providing them such a huge windfall;

Duh. There are multiple games going on at once, and some are zero-sum.

4. Trump is a demagogue we should have seen coming a decade ago;

5. Cultural civil wars are going to take place in every nation as a result of inequality;

Not seeing this. Why does inequality drive cultural civil wars?

6. Lesser developed nations are going to face awful circumstances in the battle between globalism and nationalism/protectionism;

Why worse than the last 50 years?

7. Developed nations will have it a bit better, but not much;
8. Automation and environmental crises are imminent gas on the fire in re: 1-8;
9. We’ll need radical policies like UBI to face a future where 50% of jobs are gone;

Why are 50% of the jobs going to be gone?

10. The current political squabbles focusing on individual leaders and social policy differences between the parties are robbing us of time and resources better spent on serious solutions to the crises;

No kidding. Some games are zero-sum, and they complicate the non-zero-sum games.

11. Our political systems are hopelessly dysfunctional and pretty much co-opted by small politically connected or wealthy interests.

Sounds like they are not "dysfunctional" from the perspective of small, politically connected or wealthy interests.

Read the book.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As to the rest of your argument on what constitutes abuse, can I say, ewwwwwww. Just ewwwwww.

Lighten the fuck up. First, that's tongue in cheek. But second, it's not without basis. If a friend's older sister -- past college age, had slept with me when I was 17, I'd have been "all in," in gambling terms.

I am not the outlier here. Hence, this joke persists. The best jokes are rooted in truth.

This is what's infuriating about political correctness. It's so fucking boring.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He’s pro-trade, of course, but quite critical of his own view. Very sober and middle of the road assessments.

So you're saying I should have taken the job he offered me back when Eurasia was in its infancy?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I should have just given you my proxy.

Nonetheless, can I say one more time about Sebby's post, ewwwwww.

Once more, if you're at all serious, I'll call you a priggish ponce. I'd have been Mrs. Robinson's pool boy without a second thought. So would almost any stable male.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So you're saying I should have taken the job he offered me back when Eurasia was in its infancy?

If he was drinking that much back then, you should have also asked for a massive signing bonus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Read the book.

Thanks, but I think I'd rather exercise free will.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Lighten the fuck up. First, that's tongue in cheek. But second, it's not without basis. If a friend's older sister -- past college age, had slept with me when I was 17, I'd have been "all in," in gambling terms.

I am not the outlier here. Hence, this joke persists. The best jokes are rooted in truth.

This is what's infuriating about political correctness. It's so fucking boring.

ew.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thanks, but I think I'd rather exercise free will.

I've read a wide smattering of his stuff over the years, but my suggestion would be to follow his podcasts not read his books. He can be pretty entertaining for a wonk. He's the first person I can think of Sebby has suggested whom I think is actually pretty bright and has his head screwed on.

One warning: there are not a small number of sovereigns who retain the Eurasia group, and take what he says about his own clients with about a billion grains of salt.