Should we go to war with Russia to save the economy?

 
David Nelson said:
How can invasion of a peaceful country be justified?
Click to expand...

In truth, it can’t. But the propaganda arm has work to do. And power needs no justification, only use. Very reductionist, I know, but everything else is just window dressing.

Cheers,
Ian
 
aeon said:
In truth, it can’t. But the propaganda arm has work to do. And power needs no justification, only use. Very reductionist, I know, but everything else is just window dressing.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

I note in the news, when Russia was asked to justify themselves they threw Iraq at us, which quite rightly was also wrong. Shows that they know they are in the wrong.

In the above video, note it’s the Chicago school which was key in US politics in the rape of South America. I just hate the way that guy talked at the start, all smug and self-congratulatory. Arrogant elites.
 
mintoots said:
Click to expand...

Great synopsis, I agree with his solutions generally.
Splitting Ukraine would only delay a similar situation again in the future.
Unfortunately now, Russia will in all likelihood simply absorb Ukraine.
Perhaps some part of Western Ukraine will ultimately act as a proper buffer zone in the future.
It's nice to listen to somebody who isn't very influenced by national propaganda, his perspective is much more global.
 
This was mentioned in the Q&A also
Pretty interesting how his own perspective has changed
 
Wyote said:
This was mentioned in the Q&A also
Pretty interesting how his own perspective has changed
Click to expand...
Interesting that he recognises populism isn’t the answer but does (indirectly) lay the blame on technocratic neoliberalism which he advocated for. So he is part of our current problems. The ‘end of history’ statement was of course an attempt to dismiss any other political/economic systems from political debate, especially that free market capitalism was inherently superior to socialism. This was wrong because a purely capitalist system has never worked anywhere, nor could it for long, and mixed economy is the best we know.

The big omission here is no mention of Democratic pluralism, which, along with a mixed economy worked very well for 30 years in the west. Funny he forgot to mention that isn’t it, and that it’s the best solution to our current problems. Why is hardly anyone talking about that?

In his diagnosis of the cause of discontent leading to populism, he puts it down to a lack of status/respect, yet fails to point out that the main problem is inequality and poverty (which tends to lead to the respect issue among others). He said prosperity and stability are not enough, but it’s only elites like him and others in the technocratic overclass who are really benefitting from all the prosperity.

He also said his new book is 1200? pages. Bloody hell, bet that's interesting, not!
 
Last edited:
David Nelson said:
I dont trust that analysis at all. How can invasion of a peaceful country be justified?
Click to expand...
Ukraine even as a peaceful country was the seat of the Kievan Rus, which is basically the seed of the entire history of Russia. To Putin's mind, having lost it post-cold war was losing a cultural gem. To his romantic ideology, it is losing Russian identity. Geographically, it was further losing gateways to the Black sea, which bolsters Russian trade especially when its other waterways freeze for long hauls of winter or are blocked by a NATO member. Further, Ukraine has not been all that peaceful what with historical civil wars and its internal cultural strifes. Causes of the division have been continuous power struggles from before the famine of Holodomor, but what is left today is a culturally, politically, and ideologically divided Ukraine. Nonetheless, "invasion" is a strong insistence. One of the most important non-negotiable points for Putin was that NATO stop expanding to the East. A point that has been contended upon by both parties for a long time; noting the date of the previous reference, it isn't a new argument. However, post-cold war, Russia was weak on multiple facets and therefore unable to push itself any further. Today, when the inevitable rise of the east and the significant weakening of the west had already happened, Russia has the upper hand. This isn't an invasion in Russia's eyes, it is an insistence that the boundaries be respected, specifically that western-leaning entities be more respectful.

In my humble opinion, this is far more than a call for respect and is clearly a play of power, and thus to frame this only as a direct argument against western ideologies or an evil need to oppress is running the risk of oversimplification. I daresay that there are facets to this that we are not privy to. One possibility is that this could be direct combat against the elites of Ukraine that have gone directly against Putin and his friends. At the end of the day, as the African* proverb goes, "when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers". If the leaders of Ukraine want to save as many lives as possible, I daresay that they follow the advice of the good professor from the University of Chicago which is to take a neutral stand, which they have, and which is smart since we don't want any more assets and lives lost --- an opinion I assume we both share in common, and I assume Putin does too even though he looks like Nagini sometimes.

We could talk about the rights of Ukranians to their own opinion and want for liberal principles and that is clearly going to be a very long discussion if we are going to engage in a conversation of what is or isn't justifiable. That would be a very fluid argument and, honestly, one that I would rather not engage in for if there is no one country that subscribes to the validity of international law what with very subliminal manifestations of anarchic thinking, it's easy to see that such vagueness would transcend to longwinded personal opinions of what is justifiable or not. Frankly, I don't think the rights of the common tao are even among the top priorities of these big players, but hey, we can dream.
 
Last edited:
David Nelson said:
In his diagnosis of the cause of discontent leading to populism, he puts it down to a lack of status/respect, yet fails to point out that the main problem is inequality and poverty (which tends to lead to the respect issue among others). He said prosperity and stability are not enough, but it’s only elites like him and others in the technocratic overclass who are really benefitting from all the prosperity.
Click to expand...

I don't know why, but you seem to have some anger about your own circumstances.
Attempting to demonize/discredit what you perceive as "the overclass" does a disservice to your own abilities of sorting through these issues clearly.
 
I don't respect Russia as a state. I think it is a gangster state. Whne asked to justify in an interview, the minister? just said 'you took Iraq, so don't lecture us'. He's got a point but he's not giving good reasons for the invasion is he? Look at all the protests within Russia. Putin is crafty but also mad imo. Megalomaniac. I suspect the fallout from this will go on for a long time and be big. Fighting in Ukraine could go on for a long time. It could easily spread to neighbouring countries.
 
Wyote said:
I don't know why, but you seem to have some anger about your own circumstances.
Attempting to demonize/discredit what you perceive as "the overclass" does a disservice to your own abilities of sorting through these issues clearly.
Click to expand...

I never personalised things, you are doing that in this comment. Why? Personalising political debate is a common method of delegitimising legitimate arguments. The press and politicians do it all the time.

If a group in society has a privileged existence economically, which is not primarily meritocratic, and this directly affects another group (politically, economically and culturally), then that is an issue of social justice. The recognition of classes in this way is a means of understanding the situation. It is not in itself devisive, unless you take it that way. The reason the division matters is not just because it is the cause of political anger and populism, but because many of the grievances are legitimate. The grievances are a society which is mainly run by the overclass for the overclass. Our political system doesn't work for most working class people because there is no countervailing power from below (lack of effective unions is one aspect) due to an overclass 'revolution from above' over the last 50 years. It's not that the failures of society are just jealous, it's because the rich need the poor more than the reverse, while at the same time oppress and demonise them. It's hard for most to grasp, we have been conditioned to think the overclass are creating the wealth, but it's the opposite.

I've been thinking about this and these issues for over 30 years. My analysis is deep, I've read quite a few books. I concluded Brexit was effectively a 'peasant revolt' and everything I have seen and read since has only reinforced that belief. If you have a good job, as I suspect based on your comment, I can understand you not wanting to accept this, as you will feel I am criticising you personally. But I am not. I don't know your story as you don't know mine, and it doesn't matter. It's the aggregate in society that matters.
 
Last edited:
OP, wonderful thread. However, we have gone way beyond economy.
 
David Nelson said:
I never personalised things, you are doing that in this comment. Why? Personalising political debate is a common method of delegitimising legitimate arguments. The press and politicians do it all the time.

If a group in society has a privileged existence economically, which is not primarily meritocratic, and this directly affects another group (politically, economically and culturally), then that is an issue of social justice. The recognition of classes in this way is a means of understanding the situation. It is not in itself devisive, unless you take it that way. The reason the division matters is not just because it is the cause of political anger and populism, but because many of the grievances are legitimate. The grievances are a society which is mainly run by the overclass for the overclass. Our political system doesn't work for most working class people because there is no countervailing power from below (lack of effective unions is one aspect) due to an overclass 'revolution from above' over the last 50 years. It's not that the failures of society are just jealous, it's because the rich need the poor more than the reverse, while at the same time oppress and demonise them. It's hard for most to grasp, we have been conditioned to think the overclass are creating the wealth, but it's the opposite.

I've been thinking about this and these issues for over 30 years. My analysis is deep, I've read quite a few books. I concluded Brexit was effectively a 'peasant revolt' and everything I have seen and read since has only reinforced that belief. If you have a good job, as I suspect based on your comment, I can understand you not wanting to accept this, as you will feel I am criticising you personally. But I am not. I don't know your story as you don't know mine, and it doesn't matter. It's the aggregate in society that matters.
Click to expand...

Like the left, you identified the symptoms but not the cause.

Yes, we have more inequality then ever, but the solution isn't just to tax the rich and regulate everything, like the left thinks. That's why despite the record inequality, the left isn't getting elected in parliaments around the world much.

The solution is not to just continue with the current fiat monetary system, just injecting trillions into the economy without raising any output. Even taxing the rich 99% won't solve the issue.

The main conflict is between growth and technology. Technology is deflationary, prices tend to 0. We can meet over zoom without needing to commute, travel, meet in bars, spend money etc. But our economies are based on GDP (faulty measure) which requires constant growth of consumer spending. So how do you square the fact that due to technology, we are spending less, but our growth targets need more and more spending. You cannot. That's why governments around the world are trying to keep this zombie economy alive by injecting trillions into the system and rack up the prices of everything.

It's all about technology. We gotta embrace it. I recommend you read The Price of Tomorrow by Jeff Booth.

Inflation is direct consequence of inflationary money. Prices should be decreasing, because technology itself is deflationary. Us humans are always trying to do more with less. which is a definition of deflation. But fiat governments are trying to keep the zombie machine going. Imo at least 50% of jobs could be eliminated with technology. This is the reality we need to embrace. We don't need all of those bullshit jobs just to preserve the illusion of growth. You cannot have continuous growth on a planet with finite resources.

We need to embrace 3 things. Hard money with finite supply, technology and the fact that we don't need 80% of jobs. This will lead to massive deflation and better world for everyone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top