September 07, 2020
Gas Lights and Covid
Timothy Birdnow
Had an interesting discussion on Facebook I thought worth reproducing. Frank Lasee was arguing we were being gaslighted, and he reposted something from another post (and I won't reproduce it here because I don't know it's origin) and one of his friends disagreed.
Bill Ulmer states:
I reply:
Had an interesting discussion on Facebook I thought worth reproducing. Frank Lasee was arguing we were being gaslighted, and he reposted something from another post (and I won't reproduce it here because I don't know it's origin) and one of his friends disagreed.
Bill Ulmer states:
I disagree on several points:
1. New York is where the virus really took off. The cities are crowded. They also got it under control first.
2. I don't recall people looting, assaulting others or rioting peaceful protesters. But most of the people demonstrating were peaceful.
3.Systemic racism. 45 years ago when I was on active duty in the Army we called it institutional racism. Since then I think things have gotten better, but inequalities still exist. We have to find a way forward without burning down what we already have that is good.
4.Immigration. The U.S. does admit the most immigrants. But it's wrong to call a whole group of people drug dealers and rapists, wrong to not treat asylum seekers without compassion, and terrible to separate children from parents as a policy of deterrence.
5. Communism vs. Capitalism. No one really disagrees with capitalism's ability to generate wealth. But most of the wealth is accumulating at the top while social programs are cut. Exactly opposite of what should be happening.
Sorry for the lengthy of my reply. But thank you for the thought provoking article. I hope you and others see it as a presentation of different views. Always liked our discussions Frank. Take care.
1. New York is where the virus really took off. The cities are crowded. They also got it under control first.
2. I don't recall people looting, assaulting others or rioting peaceful protesters. But most of the people demonstrating were peaceful.
3.Systemic racism. 45 years ago when I was on active duty in the Army we called it institutional racism. Since then I think things have gotten better, but inequalities still exist. We have to find a way forward without burning down what we already have that is good.
4.Immigration. The U.S. does admit the most immigrants. But it's wrong to call a whole group of people drug dealers and rapists, wrong to not treat asylum seekers without compassion, and terrible to separate children from parents as a policy of deterrence.
5. Communism vs. Capitalism. No one really disagrees with capitalism's ability to generate wealth. But most of the wealth is accumulating at the top while social programs are cut. Exactly opposite of what should be happening.
Sorry for the lengthy of my reply. But thank you for the thought provoking article. I hope you and others see it as a presentation of different views. Always liked our discussions Frank. Take care.
I reply:
Bill Ulmer I disagree on all points.
1. The city of New York became infected early but hardly got it first. And it is now under control primarily because they killed off all of the people who were vulnerable thanks to DeBlassio and Cuomo's policies of putting the infected into nursing homes. Naturally, if you kill off a lot of vulnerable and the healthier catch it and develop immunity you are going to have a drop in infection rates and mortality.
Also, there are more cities than New York or Chicago in the U.S. and not all of them had rates this high. The fact is, three states - all run by Democrats - are where most of the infections occurred; New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts.And why is it only now starting to hit L.A. so hard? Aren't they a huge international destination? Most American cities are run by Democrats, I might add, and they have been employing the same policies.
2.Saying "most of the people protesting were peaceful" is rather like saying "most of the coronavirus entering someone's body is not threatening." The fact is violence is ubiquitous at all of these "peaceful protests" which by definition make them NOT peaceful.
3.I agree, but find our way forward where? We would disagree on where the BLM folks want us to go, which is to a socialist state.
4.Nobody called everyone drug dealers and rapists. I assume you are talking about Mr. Trump who called drug dealers and rapists drug dealers and rapists. His point - obscured by the media - was that we are getting a lot of bad people COMING HERE ILLEGALLY.
As for that cage business, President Obama was the one who put the kids in cages, and it has been proven that the photos being bandied about came from the Obama era. Yes, children are being separated temporarily from their parents but a.it's the fault of the Democrats, who will not fix the law which allows whole families to waltz in via "catch and release" b.it's the fault of these kids parents who chose to take them on a dangerous journey to break our laws and violate our sovereignty and steal jobs and resources from America. We do not flinch when it comes to imprisoning the parents of children who committ other crimes. It is always understood that the parents are at fault. Now, however, we are told it's our problem.
5. Capitalism is Natural Law, not a theory. A nation of small businesses is not the kind of economics that accumulates wealth all at the top. That is called corporatism, and was the economic model of National Socialism. You do not understand the difference. Corporatism aka crony capitalism is the stepping stone to socialism as even the communists understood during Mussolini and Hitler's era (First Brown then Red was a slogan of theirs.) The fact is capitalism means people trading for their mutual benefit. Socialism is artificial; it forces people to work for the benefit of others. It is not productive.
Oh, and how many social programs do we need? How many do we have now? Seems to me we keep adding more and more and they accomplish less and less. Under a capitalist system people donate money because they choose to, and the distribution is more logical and fairer as a result. Charity works far better than a big government program. America is far more charitable than any other nation. Rising government programs kill off private charity, and the money they spend takes it away from those who would grow the economy. The best charity is a good job market. Meanwhile it lines the pockets of the rich and powerful.
America does have a huge wealth gap. Doesn't it occur to you that that gap has grown precisely in an era where we have increased the size and scope of government?
Anyway, that was a thoughtful reply to Frank but I just don't agree at all.
1. The city of New York became infected early but hardly got it first. And it is now under control primarily because they killed off all of the people who were vulnerable thanks to DeBlassio and Cuomo's policies of putting the infected into nursing homes. Naturally, if you kill off a lot of vulnerable and the healthier catch it and develop immunity you are going to have a drop in infection rates and mortality.
Also, there are more cities than New York or Chicago in the U.S. and not all of them had rates this high. The fact is, three states - all run by Democrats - are where most of the infections occurred; New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts.And why is it only now starting to hit L.A. so hard? Aren't they a huge international destination? Most American cities are run by Democrats, I might add, and they have been employing the same policies.
2.Saying "most of the people protesting were peaceful" is rather like saying "most of the coronavirus entering someone's body is not threatening." The fact is violence is ubiquitous at all of these "peaceful protests" which by definition make them NOT peaceful.
3.I agree, but find our way forward where? We would disagree on where the BLM folks want us to go, which is to a socialist state.
4.Nobody called everyone drug dealers and rapists. I assume you are talking about Mr. Trump who called drug dealers and rapists drug dealers and rapists. His point - obscured by the media - was that we are getting a lot of bad people COMING HERE ILLEGALLY.
As for that cage business, President Obama was the one who put the kids in cages, and it has been proven that the photos being bandied about came from the Obama era. Yes, children are being separated temporarily from their parents but a.it's the fault of the Democrats, who will not fix the law which allows whole families to waltz in via "catch and release" b.it's the fault of these kids parents who chose to take them on a dangerous journey to break our laws and violate our sovereignty and steal jobs and resources from America. We do not flinch when it comes to imprisoning the parents of children who committ other crimes. It is always understood that the parents are at fault. Now, however, we are told it's our problem.
5. Capitalism is Natural Law, not a theory. A nation of small businesses is not the kind of economics that accumulates wealth all at the top. That is called corporatism, and was the economic model of National Socialism. You do not understand the difference. Corporatism aka crony capitalism is the stepping stone to socialism as even the communists understood during Mussolini and Hitler's era (First Brown then Red was a slogan of theirs.) The fact is capitalism means people trading for their mutual benefit. Socialism is artificial; it forces people to work for the benefit of others. It is not productive.
Oh, and how many social programs do we need? How many do we have now? Seems to me we keep adding more and more and they accomplish less and less. Under a capitalist system people donate money because they choose to, and the distribution is more logical and fairer as a result. Charity works far better than a big government program. America is far more charitable than any other nation. Rising government programs kill off private charity, and the money they spend takes it away from those who would grow the economy. The best charity is a good job market. Meanwhile it lines the pockets of the rich and powerful.
America does have a huge wealth gap. Doesn't it occur to you that that gap has grown precisely in an era where we have increased the size and scope of government?
Anyway, that was a thoughtful reply to Frank but I just don't agree at all.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:15 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 923 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Sorry, Timothy, capitalism is not a "natural law." It is an economic system supported by national laws. It has, generally speaking, been a successful and prosperous economic system but, when perverted by greed, can produce less than wholesome results. When it does so, the problem lies not with the system, but with those who allowed it to become perverted.
Posted by: Bill H at September 07, 2020 11:00 PM (vMiSr)
2
Bill you are technically correct but you're kind of splitting hairs here. Capitalism in it's pure form IS Natural Law. It started when the first guy who made a spear traded it for some food. Capitalism is in essence free trade between two parties. It was Adam Smith who defined it, and Marx who labeled it (as a pejorative) but its genesis goes back into the mists of time.
I would argue too that capitalism is not the problem but rather corporatism, which is where governments change the rules to favor certain people or companies.
Yes, corporations were born to protect ship owners from losing everything; the joint stock company limited liability. And that led to what? The Merchantilist era where governments pretty much controlled business and favored a colonial empire you were forced to trade within. America was born out of a desire for free trade, I might add. Merchantilism did produce for the public but nothing like the bounty that came about when the restrictions were removed and European governments started allowing free trade.
But free trade has to be free, which it generally is not these days. Large corporations and nations cooperate to give us a fascist-style economic system which is heavily regulated, heavily taxed, and so stifles competition.
With all that said, I stand by my claim Bill. Capitalism is ultimately people saying what they want and making a fair and free exchange. It's what would happen without government interference, which means it is in fact a form of Natural Law.
I would argue too that capitalism is not the problem but rather corporatism, which is where governments change the rules to favor certain people or companies.
Yes, corporations were born to protect ship owners from losing everything; the joint stock company limited liability. And that led to what? The Merchantilist era where governments pretty much controlled business and favored a colonial empire you were forced to trade within. America was born out of a desire for free trade, I might add. Merchantilism did produce for the public but nothing like the bounty that came about when the restrictions were removed and European governments started allowing free trade.
But free trade has to be free, which it generally is not these days. Large corporations and nations cooperate to give us a fascist-style economic system which is heavily regulated, heavily taxed, and so stifles competition.
With all that said, I stand by my claim Bill. Capitalism is ultimately people saying what they want and making a fair and free exchange. It's what would happen without government interference, which means it is in fact a form of Natural Law.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at September 08, 2020 07:09 AM (gQ5Gb)
3
"Capitalism in it's pure form IS Natural Law. It started when the first guy who made a spear traded it for some food.â€
No, when the guy traded a spear for food he established mercantilism.
Capitalism is the ability to invest capital in the establishment of economic entities (in return, it should be noted, for an ownership position in those entities), and it required that the state provide laws to provide the structure for that exchange of capital and to regulate the nature of that investment.
"I would argue too that capitalism is not the problem but rather corporatism,â€
I would certainly not argue with that. The working and middle class enjoyed unparalleled prosperity during the 60’s and 70’s, and the economic system under which they did so was capitalism. The problems that arise have to do with how capitalism is or is not regulated, the manner of that regulation and the degree to which corporations corrupt governance.
"Yes, corporations were born to protect ship owners from losing everything;â€
No, they were not; without capitalism shipowners would have had nothing to lose. Capitalism was born so that the shipowners could raise money via investment to build their ships and fill them with trade goods.
No, when the guy traded a spear for food he established mercantilism.
Capitalism is the ability to invest capital in the establishment of economic entities (in return, it should be noted, for an ownership position in those entities), and it required that the state provide laws to provide the structure for that exchange of capital and to regulate the nature of that investment.
"I would argue too that capitalism is not the problem but rather corporatism,â€
I would certainly not argue with that. The working and middle class enjoyed unparalleled prosperity during the 60’s and 70’s, and the economic system under which they did so was capitalism. The problems that arise have to do with how capitalism is or is not regulated, the manner of that regulation and the degree to which corporations corrupt governance.
"Yes, corporations were born to protect ship owners from losing everything;â€
No, they were not; without capitalism shipowners would have had nothing to lose. Capitalism was born so that the shipowners could raise money via investment to build their ships and fill them with trade goods.
Posted by: Bill H at September 08, 2020 08:50 AM (vMiSr)
4
"But free trade has to be free,â€
It can never be unregulated, because if it is it will devolve into monopolies and work to the disadvantage of the consumer. The problem with regulation is when corporate money corrupts government such that government regulation protects corporations rather than protecting consumers. The problems then is not capitalism, nor regulation. The problem then is government corruption.
It can never be unregulated, because if it is it will devolve into monopolies and work to the disadvantage of the consumer. The problem with regulation is when corporate money corrupts government such that government regulation protects corporations rather than protecting consumers. The problems then is not capitalism, nor regulation. The problem then is government corruption.
Posted by: Bill H at September 08, 2020 08:55 AM (vMiSr)
5
Bill, again I think you are splitting hairs here. Capitalism is at it's core the same trade that was conducted by that ancient paleolithic guy. You are calling that merchantilism, but I too will now split hairs; merchanitilism is something quite different. Wikipedia (hardly a good source) defines it as:
"Mercantilism is an economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. It promotes imperialism, tariffs and subsidies on traded goods to achieve that goal."
That said, I won't split hairs here; we are both talking about the same idea of free trade.
I would draw your attention to the Encyclopedia Brittanica definition of Capitalism:
"Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets."
You will note that this is exactly the system that was in place in our caveman scenario. Bill, trading goods is in fact investing in capital. It has nothing to do with joint stock companies and the like; it predates such things.
What the joint stock company did was provide a mechanism where multiple people had part ownership to minimize risk. Again, it was intended to protect people who wanted to do overseas trading (as it was common to lose ships.) My point stands, and is in no way incorrect. You say:
"No, they were not; without capitalism shipowners would have had nothing to lose."
I beg to differ Bill; they had precisely EVERYTHING to lose if their ship went down. And ships went down all the time, which is why the joint stock company was invented by the Dutch, who also invented insurance for the same reason. Yes, it raised capital, but it also meant splitting dividends, no? But if you lost a ship that was a shared loss, too. I once read that a quarter of all long-range trading vessels never returned; they were pirated or sunk or whatnot. That's a huge disaster for an individual. For a corporation, not as bad.
I agree; in a large scale economy there has to be some regulation, or you would have monopolies and other bad things (like companies building factories and dumping toxic waste in people's back yards.) I get it. The key is to have a minimum of regulation, as little as possible. Big corporations corrupt that, and work in partnership with big government. It is exactly the kind of economy the Fascists and Nazis employed, the stepping stone to socialism (which they rightly understood it to be, as did the Marxists who had a saying "first brown then red".)
But Bill if government regulated government seeks more regulation, and the corruption comes FROM THAT REGULATION. The human heart is corrupt. It's our nature. Corporatism is an inevitable outgrowth of letting government grow beyond acceptable bounds. What starts as regulations to keep the public safe or avoid unfair business practices become tools to prevent smaller companies from challenging the big boys. It moves the economy to corporatism. That is why so many billionaires are also left wing; they spent their lives manipulating the government to their benefit, and seek to do so in future.
That's why Chesterton supported what was called Distributism, which was capitalism small c. It meant small business private enterprise. Chesterton once stated "the difference between a capitalist and a socialist is the capitalist has a bigger paycheck". Again he was talking about the corporatists, not the small business style free enterprise.
I am not saying you are wrong on anything you said (well mostly not) but that I think you are rather splitting hairs with me on a lot of this. We are pretty much on the same page.
"Mercantilism is an economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. It promotes imperialism, tariffs and subsidies on traded goods to achieve that goal."
That said, I won't split hairs here; we are both talking about the same idea of free trade.
I would draw your attention to the Encyclopedia Brittanica definition of Capitalism:
"Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets."
You will note that this is exactly the system that was in place in our caveman scenario. Bill, trading goods is in fact investing in capital. It has nothing to do with joint stock companies and the like; it predates such things.
What the joint stock company did was provide a mechanism where multiple people had part ownership to minimize risk. Again, it was intended to protect people who wanted to do overseas trading (as it was common to lose ships.) My point stands, and is in no way incorrect. You say:
"No, they were not; without capitalism shipowners would have had nothing to lose."
I beg to differ Bill; they had precisely EVERYTHING to lose if their ship went down. And ships went down all the time, which is why the joint stock company was invented by the Dutch, who also invented insurance for the same reason. Yes, it raised capital, but it also meant splitting dividends, no? But if you lost a ship that was a shared loss, too. I once read that a quarter of all long-range trading vessels never returned; they were pirated or sunk or whatnot. That's a huge disaster for an individual. For a corporation, not as bad.
I agree; in a large scale economy there has to be some regulation, or you would have monopolies and other bad things (like companies building factories and dumping toxic waste in people's back yards.) I get it. The key is to have a minimum of regulation, as little as possible. Big corporations corrupt that, and work in partnership with big government. It is exactly the kind of economy the Fascists and Nazis employed, the stepping stone to socialism (which they rightly understood it to be, as did the Marxists who had a saying "first brown then red".)
But Bill if government regulated government seeks more regulation, and the corruption comes FROM THAT REGULATION. The human heart is corrupt. It's our nature. Corporatism is an inevitable outgrowth of letting government grow beyond acceptable bounds. What starts as regulations to keep the public safe or avoid unfair business practices become tools to prevent smaller companies from challenging the big boys. It moves the economy to corporatism. That is why so many billionaires are also left wing; they spent their lives manipulating the government to their benefit, and seek to do so in future.
That's why Chesterton supported what was called Distributism, which was capitalism small c. It meant small business private enterprise. Chesterton once stated "the difference between a capitalist and a socialist is the capitalist has a bigger paycheck". Again he was talking about the corporatists, not the small business style free enterprise.
I am not saying you are wrong on anything you said (well mostly not) but that I think you are rather splitting hairs with me on a lot of this. We are pretty much on the same page.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at September 09, 2020 08:18 AM (XKEAy)
36kb generated in CPU 0.0408, elapsed 0.2407 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2301 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2301 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
