Reminder that elites do not behave at all like "overproduced" [[elites]].
A society made solely of geniuses would be amazing. A society of the intensely pious would be unfathomably glorious. "But who would take out the garbage?" The point of a genius is they're smarter than you and can solve problems that you can't solve, lol. What is impossible for you is easy for them.
Elites are very much born, not made. If you try to keep an elite from their elite education, they will smite you and get it anyway. For elites, self-teaching was the only real option in any case. The question is whether, after being (self) raised, they support your society or oppose and undermine it. The idea that anyone can choose to produce more or fewer is a hilarious egalitarian superstition.
A [produced] elite is by definition not an elite. He's a commoner given delusions of grandeur.
If elites could genuinely be produced, the correct answer would be to maximize it. Only stop when costs get so high that more marginal elites were being destroyed than produced.
Since instead it's impossible, by inspection a society with a cadre of commoners playacting at being elites is going to have issues. Especially if large parts of the government are dedicated to materially supporting the stage illusion. Narcissists have fragile egos, and it's expensive to coddle these delicate snowflakes, especially for long periods of time.
Imagine a government so weak it has to hire theatre kids to pretend to be aristocrats, or it will collapse. Impressively feeble.
14 comments:
unrelated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8
my main reaction was "wow ~everyone in the world is evil" and "it really is important to really go to the fundamentals of logic and action and figure out that lying and defection are bad ideas (and bad ideas are some kind of lying and defection) because otherwise there's all this other crap that will appear in ten thousand million trillion forms".
'don't try to out-lie satan and things will be alright'.
they even notice this and spell it out at two points. then promptly pass over it in favor of more wrongness. ...i suppose technically speaking the tax havens are more wrong and the presented 'good guys' are "less wrong". but less wrong is still wrong.
oh i noticed the simplification.
the major premise of the argument of the video is evil occurs because there are avenues for it. so long as tax havens and other legal "loopholes" are closed, evil will stop and all will be well.
i don't think this is true so all its pushes look silly
I've got all the way to 'this film was self-funded'
'on a budget of x'
and I can already tell I'm in for a ride. Envy detected.
Oh wait it phrases much more pompously and uses 'at' a budget. Standing on or near the budget - not actually using it or anything. Chicken feet?
"You are about to see." Manipulation. Trying to hypnotize me into seeing it. No dude, you haven't sold the thing yet, you can't assume I'm going to see it. If I only watch two minutes, how much of a budget were those two minutes [at]?
Using manipulation because he thinks that I think I won't want to watch it. Why shouldn't I believe him?
The [self-funded] bit is supposed to be a claim about not suffering outside influence.
Since I already know he's an Envy worshipper, a Satanist, if anything financial adulteration would be good.
Mentioning the budget explicitly like that tells me he wants it to be much bigger. And strongly implies he feels he deserves much more funding.
So the [self-funded] thing isn't a brag, it's a complaint. "This society is unjust because they wouldn't fund me a million pounds to make whatever movie I wanted."
I'm pretty sure this opening frame wasn't supposed to tell me all this, but, whelp, them's the breaks.
Pretty sure the second frame [entirely] summarizes the rest of the film. "London, especially bankers, bad." Yeah bro, welcome to 1066. William of orange also a huge cunt. Glad you could join us. Only 1000 years behind the times is pretty good, statistically speaking.
Opening sequence only works if we all take [colonialism bad] as a given. Sorry, no, Mars is a cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything...unlike the coward weakling who [[[self-funded]]] this film.
Colonialism good because they didn't pretend it was anything except attacking foreigners and taking their stuff. Imperialism bad because it was looting colonies from the colonists and pretending it was for their own good, as opposed to the second-worst form of treachery.
Skimming a bit. Noticed a wonderfully racist white man's burden.
Of course the film is just lying. They know they're full of shit. Pretending to care about foreigners is an extremely deep british tradition. Perfidious Albion not just an upper-class thing. All classes get into it. Saxons perhaps less so, but this guy is no saxon.
Basic idea being that foreigners couldn't possibly defend themselves against london's financial trickery. All responsibility accrues to london. Who should then piously be responsible on the poor childlike foreigner's behalf. The fact bankers should do it in such a way as to [make line I mean movie budget go up] is just a coincidence, lel.
The french called the brits a nation of shopkeepers on account of the fact they can't shut up about money.
Honour? Responsibility? Keeping your word? Who cares about that? Money money money money money! Money money? Money, money money money. Money....money."
oh my god they have arch-communist wanna-be stalinist, michael hudson
i had watched another video from this guy immediately before, "Princes of the Yen", based on a book by the interviewee who appears most in the video. the subtitle is "The Hidden Power of Central Banks" and it made me :sader: but i decided to listen to it cause yesterday i could not escape absolute phenomenal stupidity, deciding to stop being on the internet twice encountered it in real life twice, so if i can't escape it i'd rather it be in the computer, where it has no physical power. the one exception was drawing, except i don't do anything "concentrated", so an audio stream was the way to minimize stupidity exposure.
the thesis of the video, which takes basically the whole video to get to, is central banks are bad because they do not answer to the people. the word "independent" is used several times as the end goal and ultimate evil for central banks.
>>> >>>
>> asian financial crisis >>
"In reality, there was no need for the Asian Tiger economies to borrow from abroad. All the money necessary for domestic investment could be created at home. Indeed, the pressure to liberalise capital flows came from outside. Since the early 1990s, the IMF, the World Trade Organization, and the US treasury had been lobbying [South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia] to allow domestic firms to borrow from abroad. They argued that neoclassical economics had proven that free markets and free capital movement increased economic growth.
Once the capital accounts had been deregulated, the central banks set about creating irresistible incentives for domestic firms to borrow from abroad by making it more expensive to borrow in their own domestic currencies than it was to borrow in US dollars.
"Domestic local interest rates were higher than the US dollar interest rate, and the exchange rate was virtually fixed."
"It was the government and central bank that said 'we will maintain the exchange rate.
The central banks emphasized in their public statements that they would maintain fixed exchange rates with the US dollar, so that borrowers would not have to worry about paying back more in their domestic currencies than they had originally borrowed.
The central banks knew that if the countries ran out of foreign exchange reserves, they would have to call in the IMF to avoid default. And once the IMF came in, the central banks knew what this Washington-based institution would demand: for its demands in such cases have been the same for the previous three decades: the central banks would be made independent."
>> final section >>
"And while Japan's transformation was not yet complete, the central bankers struck again, with an IMF-led raid on the Asian Tiger economies. The present European debt crisis is yet another example of central bank deception.
To create a public consensus for the need for structural reform, by purposefully creating a recession, then needlessly prolonging it, must constitute an abuse of power.
Do citizens really want to be manipulated in such a costly and dishonest manner?"
>>
>>> >>>
the video's argument is central banks bad when independent / good when nationalized.
the video however spends 1:20 out of 1:32 on two banks (jap and thai) that were not independent, that specifically caused a crisis, became independent, and the crisis, as far as the peasantry is concerned, continued as if nothing had happened.
>> 1:18 >>
"Interesting, you're saying it's making the crisis worse, and you're suggesting that the IMF has a hidden agenda."
"Well it's not very hidden this agenda, because the IMF clearly demands that the Asian countries concerned have to change the laws so that foreign interests can buy anything from banks to land."
>>
what's the problem? foreign money.
what caused the problem? central bankers who answered to government fucked up their economic systems for foreign money.
what's the solution? central bankers should answer to the government.
it's like they didn't read their own script.
but the better explanation is they did read their own script.
that's why these kinds of things always feel awful.
all they ever say is the problem is bad, all they ever propose is the system that created the problem, the noggin puts together the total logic: these people want the bad thing to happen more so they can complain more so it can happen more so they can
jp morgan chase's slogan is "So You Can".
uh i split my comment in two and the first one disappeared by the time i posted the second.
Nitpick: nothing is wrong with foreign money. There's everything wrong with counterfeit money.
Buying stuff with fake money is fraud-type theft. If the foreigners were buying assets with their own money there would be no issue, but they're not.
i don't think it's a nitpick. if anything it's the opposite of a nitpick. it's the final issue in the end, hence, ""it really is important to really go to the fundamentals of logic and action and figure out that lying and defection are bad ideas (and bad ideas are some kind of lying and defection) because otherwise there's all this other crap that will appear in ten thousand million trillion forms".
Okay, I'll try again.
Nitpick: you don't want to figure it out. You want to hire a Judge, which is a kind of phenotype. His job is to tell what is just and what isn't. For you, it's work. For him, as easy as breathing.
English Common Law is ultimately a collection of the judgments of Judges, which is why it works, it's like a Judge LLM.
i mean, i suppose. i'm not sure i see what you're aiming at.
'you're not a lord, so ideally you shouldn't be doing lordly things like worrying about basic principles like 'lying and defection bad' and their various forms'?
Lordly things can't be done by peasants at all. Herdbeasts aren't pack member.
Judge things can be done by anyone numerate. It's a lot of work though.
Post a Comment