Jump to content

.


cybercoma

Recommended Posts

If the people are just "the masses" then they're not expected to ask for more than bread and circuses, and they will have that.

The people should be "earning it", not asking for it, right ? Alas, some of the "people" are lazy, and would rather confiscate from the rich through the power of government.

America doesn't lead ? Aw, B_C, our Canadian humility has finally rubbed off on you. Indeed America is the global home of wealth, now and for the foreseeable future.

Not true anymore....wealth is now distributed around the world. America has less and less IMF impact. You are on your own....good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 333
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The people should be "earning it", not asking for it, right ? Alas, some of the "people" are lazy, and would rather confiscate from the rich through the power of government.

"Should" ? Faux pas, my friend: economics trumps virtue so why talk about "should" ?

Yes, they'd rather confiscate the wealth or have bread and circuses as in Ancient Rome. But, believe me, this result doesn't suit me at all. I'd rather have a public decide on things.

Not true anymore....wealth is now distributed around the world. America has less and less IMF impact. You are on your own....good luck.

I'm not on my own, because I'm tied to my next door neighbour and friend, so good luck to us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Should" ? Faux pas, my friend: economics trumps virtue so why talk about "should" ?

Yes, they'd rather confiscate the wealth or have bread and circuses as in Ancient Rome. But, believe me, this result doesn't suit me at all. I'd rather have a public decide on things.

No, I was just mocking the ideology posted above. The public is a large amalgam of special interests that will always bicker and decide very little. Open Government would be their biggest circus yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I was just mocking the ideology posted above. The public is a large amalgam of special interests that will always bicker and decide very little. Open Government would be their biggest circus yet.

Whose ideology ? Mine ? "The" public is not the public but masses. Special interests are perhaps another way of saying publics, except that the levers to make things happen could be tuned up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing precluding them from rejecting Canada and localizing. That's not just an alternative, I think it's an inevitability

It makes sense intuitively, but the numbers don't show it. Municipal election have an even worse turnout than federal elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whose ideology ? Mine ? "The" public is not the public but masses. Special interests are perhaps another way of saying publics, except that the levers to make things happen could be tuned up.

Nah....it would be the same gaggle of aligned special interests...until the policy fighting is renewed all over again. Rich people are far more focused than that. Let the rubes fight and complain about how unfair life is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah....it would be the same gaggle of aligned special interests...until the policy fighting is renewed all over again.

I recommend the Robert Caro book about Robert Moses to you. He had an effective way to determine the public's interests, he decided then he made it happen.

Rich people are far more focused than that. Let the rubes fight and complain about how unfair life is.

They more than any other group have to keep an eye open for the mob. The 20th century didn't only have revolutions, they had tax increases too. Today's capitalists remind me of the ones from the 1920s; they believe their own press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommend the Robert Caro book about Robert Moses to you. He had an effective way to determine the public's interests, he decided then he made it happen.

Then all of the problems are solved...right ? Gee, that was easy !

They more than any other group have to keep an eye open for the mob. The 20th century didn't only have revolutions, they had tax increases too. Today's capitalists remind me of the ones from the 1920s; they believe their own press.

Meh...I grow weary of the "mob" threat. This is not the French Revolution. The "mob" kills more of each other each year than rich people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then all of the problems are solved...right ? Gee, that was easy !

No. But at that point you have a set of defined stakeholders, which is easier to work with than the voiceless mass of humanity that is "the" public. You clearly work in IT. I have had a helluva time wrangling projects where the SOW doesn't specifically include a stakeholder identification clause. If you don't include that then the lawyers, brand managers, and every executive and his Cayman Island account arrive at your project in a clown car and proceed to pie you in the face repeatedly.

(I am quite pleased with that metaphor, actually.)

Meh...I grow weary of the "mob" threat. This is not the French Revolution. The "mob" kills more of each other each year than rich people.

I have stated repeatedly on this thread that you won't get revolution, you'll get a long string of Obamas and LBJs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...You clearly work in IT. I have had a helluva time wrangling projects where the SOW doesn't specifically include a stakeholder identification clause. If you don't include that then the lawyers, brand managers, and every executive and his Cayman Island account arrive at your project in a clown car and proceed to pie you in the face repeatedly.

No...we have system and business analysts to run interference for us. If it is not explicitly stated as in scope, then it is out of scope. Our stakeholders are never allowed to speak with the technicrats, because lies to the customer are readily exposed.

I have stated repeatedly on this thread that you won't get revolution, you'll get a long string of Obamas and LBJs.

And yet, the rich keep getting richer, and the "public" whines more about growing so called income inequality. Bring on more Obamas !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...we have system and business analysts to run interference for us.

You throw BAs at the lawyers ? LOL. That must be hilarious.

If it is not explicitly stated as in scope, then it is out of scope. Our stakeholders are never allowed to speak with the technicrats, because lies to the customer are readily exposed.

Approvals are always in scope. Have you worked with an aesthetic redesign yet ?

Sounds like you're client side which is a different game.

And yet, the rich keep getting richer, and the "public" whines more about growing so called income inequality.

My favourite flavour of whine is Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove on election night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the rich not getting richer ? What have the "publics" achieved in this regard ?

You answered it yourself - the rich are getting richer.

Buy more lottery tickets ?

Uh... feel free... I'm not sure why you're not just letting this topic roll forward. I would have thought connecting resources, deliverables with a thinking public that consumes them would appeal to you - since that is how the whole engine of democracy was designed, town halls and so on. It's as American as Apple Inc. and as such I thought you'd like the idea.

Maybe it sounds too utopian, the way I'm describing it, but it's really just a better framework for politics than the mass media/lobbying model that is now crashing.

It feels like you're the one complaining about the natural flow of events here, and I'm the one saying "don't worry be happy", which is a 180 degree flip from usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh... feel free... I'm not sure why you're not just letting this topic roll forward. I would have thought connecting resources, deliverables with a thinking public that consumes them would appeal to you - since that is how the whole engine of democracy was designed, town halls and so on. It's as American as Apple Inc. and as such I thought you'd like the idea.

It most certainly is not how democracy was designed in America. It may have developed later along those lines, but still with severe restrictions (landowners, white males, suffrage, etc. etc.). It doesn't matter what I think about it...that was/is the reality.

Maybe it sounds too utopian, the way I'm describing it, but it's really just a better framework for politics than the mass media/lobbying model that is now crashing.

It feels like you're the one complaining about the natural flow of events here, and I'm the one saying "don't worry be happy", which is a 180 degree flip from usual.

A new framework means nothing on paper. The "publics" do spend more attention on lottery cash prizes based on observed behaviour. They want to be rich more than they want to play games with open government, and spend their money accordingly.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It most certainly is not how democracy was designed in America. It may have developed later along those lines, but still with severe restrictions (landowners, white males, suffrage, etc. etc.). It doesn't matter what I think about it...that was/is the reality.

Yes, but even that design is closer to what I'm talking about than the current mass media/lobbying model.

And I'm not sure why you seem to be tarring the publics as some kind of proletarian mob... missing the point again. Members of the public vote, they have opinions, right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people should be "earning it", not asking for it, right ? Alas, some of the "people" are lazy, and would rather confiscate from the rich through the power of government.

Its fine to expect people to earn it, but the problem is most of the wealth doesnt go to people who have innovative or inventive ideas, or the people who actually produce the products and services that people need...

Most of the money goes to people that just shuffle paper around, or invest capital that the public created and gave them in the first place and the the public now owes a debt for. And of course when they gamble all that money on risky ventures or acts of outright fraud, and incur huge losses the public is on the hook to bail them out for THAT half the time as well.

In your view obviously bankers (who create money to lend out of thin air) and the financiers that "loan" it out are the ones doing all the "earning" since they are the ones that get by far the biggest reward. Its a view that would have made french, russian and english aristocrats, and robber barons proud of you. The ultimate in useful idiocy... And the modern aristocracy is jumping up and down laughing with glee all the way to the bank, that people are actually stupid to believe any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....And I'm not sure why you seem to be tarring the publics as some kind of proletarian mob... missing the point again. Members of the public vote, they have opinions, right or wrong.

The "mob" was your idea..not mine. Still, wealth does not fear the mob, as they can be bought off. Example: dwindling union members will approve a new collective bargaining agreement with givebacks for a measley ratification bonus of $2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... The ultimate in useful idiocy... And the modern aristocracy is jumping up and down laughing with glee all the way to the bank, that people are actually stupid to believe any of it.

Meh....you still think the U.S. went bankrupt back in 1971. So it's all funny money now, right ? Take all the wealth and give it to the poor workers and social welfare deadbeats who "really" created it, and they will piss it away in short order. That's why the "aristocrats" will always win this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "mob" was your idea..not mine. Still, wealth does not fear the mob, as they can be bought off. Example: dwindling union members will approve a new collective bargaining agreement with givebacks for a measley ratification bonus of $2000.

Wrong. The US has a rich history of using taxation to break up concentrated wealth. Just because youre ignorant of your history doesnt mean that it wont happen. Its not only probably, its completely inevitable, and it has happened single time in history that wealth has concentrated beyond a certain point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. The US has a rich history of using taxation to break up concentrated wealth. Just because youre ignorant of your history doesnt mean that it wont happen. Its not only probably, its completely inevitable, and it has happened single time in history that wealth has concentrated beyond a certain point.

And the rich keep getting richer, no matter how much (or how little) U.S. history you think you know. Marginal rates are quite low now. Get those rich people ! Get 'em !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I most certainly didn't invent "the mob". You're misrepresenting my argument when you try to depict publics as proletarian masses.

Either way, the burden to realize these "publics" is yours. I represent the status quo, a far easier perch to cackle from. Ultimately, I think that individual motives and actions are more important than the false promise of collective mediocrity and class envy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Open Government" is no more about squeezing money out of the rich than it is about stopping government spending although some proponents of OG think both of those things. Again, it's the alignment of power, money, and utility with the people involved.

I grok that it's more about squeezing power out of the powerful but I just don't see how you expect to accomplish that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...