Congrats 'Mericuh, we're officially an Oligarchy!

[chenGOD]

Thomas Piketty has done some excellent writing on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/international/taking-on-adam-smith-and-karl-marx.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

[Adieu]

Thomas Piketty has done some excellent writing on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/international/taking-on-adam-smith-and-karl-marx.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

 

tldr please

[delet...]

 

So if i project hypotheticals? ;-p

 

If you project a negative and cynical viewpoint through your thoughts and actions your world with reflect it.

 

 

That's hogwash meant to stop valid and necessary sceptical criticism. This type of argument blunter seems to be favoured by cliché new ager and hippy types and the power elite. Buzzwords like 'project something this or that' come from the lexicon of thought repression.

[delet...]

America is too big to have one government.

 

I agree. And having government closer to the people makes it a lot more difficult and expensive for one monolithic entity to corrupt it. The local people would notice more if one of their representatives suddenly had a better house or a new car, whereas someone in washington becoming a multimillionaire during their time in office barely registers.

[goDel]

 

Thomas Piketty has done some excellent writing on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/international/taking-on-adam-smith-and-karl-marx.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

 

tldr please

 

i tried on the previous page

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/83117-congrats-mericuh-were-officially-an-oligarchy/page-3?do=findComment&comment=2155660

[Audioblysk]

 

America is too big to have one government.

 

I agree. And having government closer to the people makes it a lot more difficult and expensive for one monolithic entity to corrupt it. The local people would notice more if one of their representatives suddenly had a better house or a new car, whereas someone in washington becoming a multimillionaire during their time in office barely registers.

 

+1. Break the USA into 5-6 countries governed by their own laws

[Adieu]

 

 

So if i project hypotheticals? ;-p

 

If you project a negative and cynical viewpoint through your thoughts and actions your world with reflect it.

 

 

That's hogwash meant to stop valid and necessary sceptical criticism. This type of argument blunter seems to be favoured by cliché new ager and hippy types and the power elite. Buzzwords like 'project something this or that' come from the lexicon of thought repression.

 

 

It's not meant to stop anything. It's meant to empower you. You don't understand.

[delet...]

 

 

 

So if i project hypotheticals? ;-p

 

If you project a negative and cynical viewpoint through your thoughts and actions your world with reflect it.

 

 

That's hogwash meant to stop valid and necessary sceptical criticism. This type of argument blunter seems to be favoured by cliché new ager and hippy types and the power elite. Buzzwords like 'project something this or that' come from the lexicon of thought repression.

 

 

It's not meant to stop anything. It's meant to empower you. You don't understand.

 

 

[goDel]

Euhm,

 

there's a fundamental difference between hypothesising and projecting. please don't make this discussion any more confusing than it already is.

 

if mr. Adieu doesn't see a problem in living in a society where gunned stand-offs between government and civilians are not an issue (as long as people don't shoot, but make gunned statements...!?), that's fine. i just think it's the wild west from centuries ago.

 

instead of the "guy with the most money", it's the "guy with the biggest gun rules" kind of society.

 

pew pew pew

[Adieu]

In reference to delets nonsense criticisms --- It's hardly the same thing to compare what I said with some bullshit propaganda.

 

Euhm,

 

there's a fundamental difference between hypothesising and projecting. please don't make this discussion any more confusing than it already is.

 

if mr. Adieu doesn't see a problem in living in a society where gunned stand-offs between government and civilians are not an issue (as long as people don't shoot, but make gunned statements...!?), that's fine. i just think it's the wild west from centuries ago.

 

instead of the "guy with the most money", it's the "guy with the biggest gun rules" kind of society.

 

pew pew pew

 

It's a transition man. We are in a process of awakening every mind on this planet right now.

 

 

You can't just change an entire society in one day. Think about making a change in your life. It's a struggle. It takes time and effort, and you are only one person.

[goDel]

You're romanticising gunned stand-offs because of some sort of transition?

 

Are you thinking about a specific transition? Have I missed a memo? Occupy without guns transitioning into an occupy with guns?

[Adieu]

You're romanticising gunned stand-offs because of some sort of transition?

 

Are you thinking about a specific transition? Have I missed a memo? Occupy without guns transitioning into an occupy with guns?

 

I'm not romanticizing anything. Your line of reasoning is complicatedly illogical.

 

Occupy and the Bundy Ranch incident are both positive. Why are you focusing so much on it anyway? It's only one event among many.

 

And when people's hypothesizing is all based on their negative subjective perspectives (a very common problem I might add) then my comment is valid. theorizing is something based on fact. Easy to do when you are looking at something from a micro perspective, but once you try to expand it then it becomes near impossible to come up with anything valid beyond a projection. This is why there is no perfect economic system or government. Or why every economist will tell you something different.

 

But if you could show me the successful people who always think negatively about the future instead of recognizing the good things around them I would be pleased to see it.

 

Thoughts manifest themselves in the physical world regardless of intention. They alter biology and behavior. It's not some new agey joke. It's science.

[delet...]

You're romanticising gunned stand-offs because of some sort of transition?

 

Are you thinking about a specific transition? Have I missed a memo? Occupy without guns transitioning into an occupy with guns?

 

 

Occupy didn't work, going on the street only effects change if you can get the bulk of the population out there with you and they seem very skilled at using the media to obfuscate the message of the radicals that would foment change and making use of law enforcement to target and break up demonstrations whilst then using the media to diminish and tarnish the push for change. I like what max keiser advocates, financially attacking the power elite. Seems like a clear road to victory along with breaking up the big administration zones that they have built up and are expanding all the time using international treaty and so forth. Sometimes expansion is good though, like Brittany getting back Nante, but only because that sets the people of Brittany up for a future withdrawl from france with the whole of their state intact. heh.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

Occupy didn't work

 

 

This simply isn't true.

 

People say the same thing about many movements of the 60's, that it was a bunch of failed promises. But the success was subtle and diffuse and now we all just take its fruits for granted.

 

No, Occupy didn't turn America into a direct democracy, but it succeeded in many subtle (and many not so subtle) ways. As far as simply raising awareness, Occupy was a huge success. There was a domino effect of protests all over the world. Etc etc.

 

Anyway, Occupy was a huge success.

[Adieu]

Well, it also brought the 1% discussion to the forefront of political discourse for many folks. it's a reoccurring theme now. That is a beautiful success.

[digman]

If what they are saying is true, wouldn't it be more of a Plutocracy rather Oligarchhy?

[delet...]

yindeed.

[chenGOD]

 

Thomas Piketty has done some excellent writing on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/international/taking-on-adam-smith-and-karl-marx.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

 

tldr please

 

r > g

edit: and will continue to be so.

[b born droid]

 

 

So if i project hypotheticals? ;-p

 

If you project a negative and cynical viewpoint through your thoughts and actions your world with reflect it.

 

 

That's hogwash meant to stop valid and necessary sceptical criticism. This type of argument blunter seems to be favoured by cliché new ager and hippy types and the power elite. Buzzwords like 'project something this or that' come from the lexicon of thought repression.

 

No I'm pretty sure it's meant to stop things like confirmation bias and associated thought processes and actually encourage thought, pro activeness etc.

 

Your example where you assumed that had that ranch thingy been over something serious, there would have been a very definite negative outcome. Now that might be true. And it might not be. But such a projection certainly feeds into a "nothing good happens, what's the point" attitude which is pretty prevalent these days. So when time comes and shit does hit the fan over something serious, nobody makes that much of an effort believing it to be wasted time, shit goes ahead and everyone pats themselves on the back because they knew it would happen that way, despite no real attempt having occurred.

[goDel]

Stop things like confirmation bias and associated thought processes? Wtf. Association is inherent to any thought process. You know, the way neural networks function and all that? It's all about associating new experiences with old experiences. The only way to stop association is by being brain dead.

 

Are you high?

[usagi]

he said "associated", as in thought processes associated with confirmation bias. not "association", which is a different idea that you're running with.

[goDel]

Still think it's naive to talk about confirmation bias as if it is something which could be stopped. Point still is that things like confirmation bias can be (i'll make it weaker for your pleasure) inherent to that biological association machine.

 

But if people want to feel enlightened or awakened by thinking they're beyond all that, be my guest. In my eyes, assumptions like that are just other beliefs related to confimation bias.. ;D

[usagi]

irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I've noticed you have a tendency to run wild with your misinterpretations of people's remarks. this thread isn't about the subjects you're bringing up in that (somewhat rude) reply to droid.

 

not that it's my place to tell people what to discuss and what not to discuss, but as someone who swears by Occam's razor and likes to keep tangents/noise in a discussion to a minimum, it's kind of irritating.

[goDel]

thanks for the feedback.

 

but this thread was all over the place anyways? and did i swear by occams razor and keeping noise to a minimum? i did shave myself this morning. and i uselessly tried to get this thread back on track a page earlier. didn't work, so now it's playtime. especially if the thread is already going nowhere.

 

bonus question: what was the discussion at hand anyways?

[Guest]

"Business as usual"