(imported largely from another thread for comment)

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.



gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

Is anyone impressed by the states that ever voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 or 1956? Most were (and still are) toward the bottom in measures of human development, including formal education. To be sure, Missouri and West Virginia still had the strong and militant United Mine Workers who could make the difference between Democrats and Republicans winning the state -- but now Missouri and West Virginia are statistically awful.

Barack Obama did not win these interests which may have been the difference between a near-landslide (2008) or a middling win (2012) and blowout wins in 2008 and 2012:

Mormons
plutocrats
ranch interests

which likely made the difference between Obama and Eisenhower in their coalitions of victory. Obama did extremely well with just about any discernible minority group; Eisenhower probably fared better among Latinos and blacks than any subsequent Republican. On the other side, Eisenhower probably never won a majority of organized labor and Obama probably saw organized labor at its political weakest since the 1920s during his Presidency.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'm wondering where you would classify those who work for governments or nonprofits?

I am finding this season of Survivor: Worlds Apart interesting. The 18 castaways were placed into three tribes: white collar, blue collar, and no collar (artists, yoga teachers, and the like). Each week, someone else is voted off; now, nearing the end of the season, there are only six castaways on the island -- 1 white collar, 1 no collar, and 5(!) blue collars. Seems like the proletarians are ruling.

Generally speaking under capitalism, governmental workers are proletarians of the strata known as the "labor aristocracy". Non-profit workers are more difficult to place. It would depend on what they do. That is both the non-profit and the person working at said non-profit.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The demand that the peon show loyalty to the Boss is a demand for dishonesty. Does anyone believe that the counter people at a fast food place are happier than schoolteachers because counter people smile more? As a substitute teacher... I learned quickly that it is wisest to make someone earn my smile. Mine, when it happens, is genuine.

I would agree with that assement. However, the fact remains, that culturally (and this is true in both the North and the South) that Americans want those who serve them (arguably the most over worked and underpaid people in the economy) to smile while they do it. If you don't you can expect someone to file a corporate complaint and at least a write up, if not termination.

As for managment demanding that "the peons" show them loyalty....that generally is not the case. We expect the help to jump ship should someone offer something even slightly better.

Strong unions are the solution. Unions are the only entities that can stand up for the working man against heartless tycoons and narcissistic executives who think of workers as machines of meat and little else.

Strong unions can also be destroyed by the State which is in the hands of the bourgeoisie as its ruling elite. No matter how strong a union or collection of union may get the bourgeoisie retains the ability to destroy them. The question is does the bourgeoisie have the will to destroy them? In the 1940s-1970s they did not because it was seen counter productive to the anti-communist agenda.

The deal for the first half of the Millsaec was simple, you can have a union, you can have decent pay, but don't have a communist revolution.

By the way -- an executive who owns none of the means of production but gets huge compensation for treating people badly is far more of an exploiter than the family that owns a mom-and-pop business. For the latter, the profit is one's pay.

Most executives for large corporations are bourgeoisie, the owners of mom-and-pop businesses (such as still exist) are largely petty-bourgeoisie. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

Executives. Think of Richard Cheney.

Dick Cheney is also a major holder of Haliburton Stock. IE he is bourgeois. Executive is not a class, it is a description of what someone does specifically.

He aligns with the worst of American elites. What is in it for him?

You'd have to ask him. However, I have two theories that are the likely case: 1. CXr is a bourgeois, 2. CXr is not bourgeois but he has bought the Horatio Alger myth.

There will still be people devoid of imagination and people who like routine, repetitive work that intelligent people generally chafe at. For the rest of us?

Did you not read my post before responding to it? I wouldn't be surprised if you did, it is annoying, it is also a White Boomer Liberal would do too. I suggest you think about my statements concerning cultural production. These would be perfect for intelligent people who chafe at "routine, repetitive work". That said, not everyone who is intelligent chafes under such work...one of my donut guys actually enjoys his job provided he doesn't have to deal with too many "morons" as he calls them. Needless to say, we have a different daily special donut every day.

80-hour workweek... 70-hour workweek... 60-hour workweek... 50-hour workweek... 40-hour workweek; such is progress. But it could be that the 40-hour workweek is obsolete.

I would argue that perhaps the concept of a work week will become obsolete when most production has been automated. That being said, I think we will be headed for a 25 or 30 hour work week after the 4T ends. If only due to Obamacare.

We have big adjustments to make. The post-scarcity economy (OK, gold, furs, diamonds, emeralds, teak, mahogany, abalone, lobster, and prime ocean-view property will always be scarce) will require huge changes in the way in which people live, let alone do things. Status symbols that allegedly distinguish the rich from the non-rich (really the middle class from the working class) will become irrelevant as people become more secure about what they are.

Status symbol commodities are not really important to either the bourgeoisie or proletariat in the main. Consumerism has seen to it that for every rolex there are 50 knock-offs of nearly equal quality. The desire to have those status symbols is not really present in Younger Xers, Millies and probably won't be for neo-Silents. The demand for those things is rooted in a older, and dying reality and common to what is left of the GIs, and Silents, and Boomers and Older Xers.

Automobile ownership is declining amongst young people not only because "they can't afford a car" but also because they also realize that having a car means that they are shackled to the oil companies and so on. The myth of the car as being freedom has been long exposed. If a Millie, or (and god do I hate this term) Y'er owns a car they do so because it is necessary, and they wished it was not necessary.

I have my idea about what many people might do with the technology of video. Let us suppose that you live here:



and your wall can look like this:



With video imaging getting incredibly cheap, why not?

It seems your idea comes from post-modernist, idealism Lala land. Either your wall is falling down or it is not. If it is, it behooves you to fix it reguardless of what imaging technology might be able to make it look like.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I understand your definition and see some utility in it. It does get muddle by the fact that middle incomes do tend to have stock ownership, but that gets mitigated by a "controlling ownership."

Largely speaking, that muddle will only be argued by those who refuse to ignore the inconsequential in order to understand the fundamental. There are many in the upper strata(s) [not sure of the plural for strata] of the proletariat who own stocks of companies and hedge funds in their retirement portfolio, and I'm sure that someone will argue that some quantity of stock ownership will cause a qualitative change in the class relation of an individual, but generally it is understood by Marxists that a controlling interest (or significant minority) status is necessary for that qualitative change.

One thing to note, for self-preservation, is that the only thing the federal govt accepts for tax payment is dollars. Try to pay in gold, bit coins, donkeys or brides, and depending on varying tolerance levels measured in length of time, you will be forced into jail or under medical care.

That, by the way, is true for all central govts; its just that the name of their currency changes.

Oh I'm always sure to pay my taxes in the approved electron format. And I agree on currency, I've been trying to read up on MMT mostly because it seems to be a possible method out of this mess short of outright violent revolution.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

There are many in the upper strata(s) [not sure of the plural for strata] of the proletariat who own stocks of companies and hedge funds in their retirement portfolio, and I'm sure that someone will argue that some quantity of stock ownership will cause a qualitative change in the class relation of an individual, but generally it is understood by Marxists that a controlling interest (or significant minority) status is necessary for that qualitative change.

To answer your question, "strata" is the plural of "stratum".

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Status symbol commodities are not really important to either the bourgeoisie or proletariat in the main. Consumerism has seen to it that for every rolex there are 50 knock-offs of nearly equal quality. The desire to have those status symbols is not really present in Younger Xers, Millies and probably won't be for neo-Silents. The demand for those things is rooted in a older, and dying reality and common to what is left of the GIs, and Silents, and Boomers and Older Xers.

Unfortunately, the desire for status symbols is stronger than ever among younger Indian immigrants. It's too early to say if their American-born kids will follow their parents or their peers.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Ironically, in 2008 income was one of the weakest predictors of whether one would vote for the Democratic nominee for President or for the Republican. Ethnicity and religion matter far more. How dense the population was in one's community explained far more. Formal education, once a reliable surrogate for voting Republican, turned on its head.

A poor white was much more likely to vote Republican than was a middle-income Latino or Asian.

And the key to understanding is to realize that when C-Xer envisions those with less income, the poor Whites showing up for t-parties is not part of that vision. Hell, it's not even what the poor Whites showing up for t-parties envision about themselves.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I must have a weak amygdala. I must think that what FDR said of fear ("All we have to fear is... FEAR ITSELF!") one of the profoundest bits of political wisdom ever.

I would say you got your amygdala in check and hopefully ready with its fight-or-flight response should there be an actual threat - it's actually an important part of the brain and human survival.

But in its hyperbolic state within the brains of today's amygdala-dominated, it presents a Catch-22 - their short-circuited cerebral lobes are not allowed to differentiate between real threats and their imaginary hyperbole, letting their amygdala's run uncheck, and further overriding their higher brain functions. Its a vicious circle - approach them with facts and logic and they just spin further out of control.

One only needs to watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes, with the understanding of their very purposeful appeal to the amygdala (e.g., welfare queens! out-of-control vaginas! Kenyan Muslim! Benghazi! Freedom Fries! Jade Helm! Mufasa!) to come to grips with how futile your facts and rational arguments - essentially, attempts at compromise and bipartisanship with the insane. The only viable path is to await their eventual demise as a political force and do everything one can to accelerate it.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... generally it is understood by Marxists that a controlling interest (or significant minority) status is necessary for that qualitative change.

That's it; that's what I was thinking, but you said it much better.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Oh I'm always sure to pay my taxes in the approved electron format. And I agree on currency, I've been trying to read up on MMT mostly because it seems to be a possible method out of this mess short of outright violent revolution.

That's my hope. But from the typical reaction I get when pointing out the myth of central govt spending restrained by revenue, I've come to the conclusion it is a more strongly held belief system than any religion or even feelings toward loved ones (okay, now my amygdala may be firing to many synapses). Such a widely (its pretty independent of place on the political spectrum) and deeply held belief system isn't likely going to go down without a revolution. But does it actually have to be bloody? I don't know.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would agree with that assement. However, the fact remains, that culturally (and this is true in both the North and the South) that Americans want those who serve them (arguably the most over worked and underpaid people in the economy) to smile while they do it. If you don't you can expect someone to file a corporate complaint and at least a write up, if not termination.

As for management demanding that "the peons" show them loyalty....that generally is not the case. We expect the help to jump ship should someone offer something even slightly better.

When times are good, people graduate from cr@ppy jobs to not-so-cr@ppy jobs. People who work for fast-food places are generalists who do a variety of tasks, none expertly but fitting the rigid rules of the business -- customer contact, shipping and receiving, food processing, paperwork. Anyone who works in a fast-food place does one of these things better or likes one of those aspects of the job better. So going from a fast-food place to an office, a warehouse, a factory, or commission-based sales is typically an improvement through more specialization.

Specialization has usually been one of the keys to vocational improvement.

Strong unions can also be destroyed by the State which is in the hands of the bourgeoisie as its ruling elite. No matter how strong a union or collection of union may get the bourgeoisie retains the ability to destroy them. The question is does the bourgeoisie have the will to destroy them? In the 1940s-1970s they did not because it was seen counter productive to the anti-communist agenda.

Fascism promises the elites the destruction of workers' rights so that employers can work longer and harder under harsher conditions for less. It makes promises of economic growth that solves every question of inequality by allegedly creating so much prosperity that economic inequality is irrelevant. As one can expect, fascists find it far easier to meet the promises that they make to economic elites than to meet the promises that they make to the working class. Fascism typically makes contradictory promises on which it can never deliver, and to maintain power it must turn to brutal suppression of those who want the mass prosperity.

We have economic fascism without the torture chambers and shooting pits. Maybe that is far better than the purer fascism of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, etc. Sure. -7F is more pleasant than -27F.

I do not trust America's economic elites with the electoral process or civil liberties.

The deal for the first half of the Millsaec was simple, you can have a union, you can have decent pay, but don't have a communist revolution.

Today, it's "Be thankful that things aren't worse than they now are. Blame Obama!"-- a few years ago it was still "Be thankful that things aren't worse than they now are. Dubya is the best that you can have!"

(Really, Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress were able to push some major reforms for two years. Now we have gridlock).

Most executives for large corporations are bourgeoisie, the owners of mom-and-pop businesses (such as still exist) are largely petty-bourgeoisie. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

Business executives are selected, beyond competence in certain activities, unqualified belief in plutocracy at its rawest.

Dick Cheney is also a major holder of Haliburton Stock. IE he is bourgeois. Executive is not a class, it is a description of what someone does specifically.

That's one check upon who gets ahead in corporate America. I'd tell a kid to not trust Corporate America unless one has education that ensures a career based on a highly-honed skill... such as engineering or accounting. You might work in a fast-food place for a short-term goal -- but go as quickly as possible to anything but corporate America. Small business. Medicine. Non-profits. Clergy. Government -- even the military.

You'd have to ask him. However, I have two theories that are the likely case: 1. CXr is a bourgeois, 2. CXr is not bourgeois but he has bought the Horatio Alger myth.

He's a piece of work.

Did you not read my post before responding to it? I wouldn't be surprised if you did, it is annoying, it is also a White Boomer Liberal would do too. I suggest you think about my statements concerning cultural production. These would be perfect for intelligent people who chafe at "routine, repetitive work". That said, not everyone who is intelligent chafes under such work...one of my donut guys actually enjoys his job provided he doesn't have to deal with too many "morons" as he calls them. Needless to say, we have a different daily special donut every day.

I have found that I am a pretty-good landscape photographer once I got a digital camera now that I don't have to mess with photo processing.

I would argue that perhaps the concept of a work week will become obsolete when most production has been automated. That being said, I think we will be headed for a 25 or 30 hour work week after the 4T ends. If only due to Obamacare.

Concurrence. If our production is to be done by robots, then we need to tax the Hell out of robot-based production just to meet the needs for Social Security, let alone lost income taxes from working people. The robots will never collect on Social Security, and they are certainly keeping people from having the old jobs of blue-collar manufacturing.

Status symbol commodities are not really important to either the bourgeoisie or proletariat in the main. Consumerism has seen to it that for every rolex there are 50 knock-offs of nearly equal quality. The desire to have those status symbols is not really present in Younger Xers, Millies and probably won't be for neo-Silents. The demand for those things is rooted in a older, and dying reality and common to what is left of the GIs, and Silents, and Boomers and Older Xers.

I am secure enough emotionally, and alienated enough with status symbols, that I prefer a real Timex (a low-end, but serviceable watch) to a fake Rolex. I don't need the word "GUCCI" or "GIVENCHY" plastered across my chest. I recognize the word "luxury" as a signal of a rip-off instead of a virtue. I have gotten very cynical about advertising claims. The only business loyalty that I have is a negative loyalty -- I know brand names associated with Koch Industries and avoid buying them because the Koch family seeks to bring fascism to America. When I must buy imported clothing I look for "Made in India" because Koch Industries has no presence there; the polyester isn't poisoned. (OK, ownership and management of Procter&Gamble and Kimberley-Clark may be pieces of work, and India is no workers' paradise, but I certainly am not going to buy my own chains on behalf of the Koch family). I buy my soft drinks in cans because I know that Koch has a huge role in the making of plastics for bottles.

Automobile ownership is declining amongst young people not only because "they can't afford a car" but also because they also realize that having a car means that they are shackled to the oil companies and so on. The myth of the car as being freedom has been long exposed. If a Millie, or (and god do I hate this term) Y'er owns a car they do so because it is necessary, and they wished it was not necessary.

In giant cities -- New York. You can easily pay more to park the car than on payments on an auto loan. Outside of the big cities your car is your means of bringing back groceries. But that is basic economics.

It seems your idea comes from post-modernist, idealism Lala land. Either your wall is falling down or it is not. If it is, it behooves you to fix it reguardless of what imaging technology might be able to make it look like.

Idealism? No. Just technology and the preference of beauty over the ugliness. Ugliness creates despair.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And the key to understanding is to realize that when C-Xer envisions those with less income, the poor Whites showing up for t-parties is not part of that vision. Hell, it's not even what the poor Whites showing up for t-parties envision about themselves.

...But the new sheriff is a (Clang!)

Those poor whites appearing at Tea Party events must have enough to get to the events and to doff the 18th-century costumes. They must find that a black man as President is a refutation of the old assumption that those who would rule them would at least have the same level of pigmentation. They typically show gross ignorance of the American Revolution and 18th-century American politics.

Those poor whites have been left behind in the American political system for decades.

I would say you got your amygdala in check and hopefully ready with its fight-or-flight response should there be an actual threat - it's actually an important part of the brain and human survival.

I have run away or driven away from two threats based upon allegations of homosexuality. I stood my ground on an incident in school in which one bigot bragged about bashing gays with a baseball bat because the brute had no baseball bat -- and I could make a lesson out of it. I united a left-wing concern for human rights with a right-wing concern for law and order. The brute didn't get the message, but others did.

But in its hyperbolic state within the brains of today's amygdala-dominated, it presents a Catch-22 - their short-circuited cerebral lobes are not allowed to differentiate between real threats and their imaginary hyperbole, letting their amygdala's run uncheck, and further overriding their higher brain functions. Its a vicious circle - approach them with facts and logic and they just spin further out of control.

Part of good education must include the ability to assess real dangers from manufactured fear. As a prime example, I know how frequent and dangerous bar-room brawls are... and I do not go into bars with suspect clienteles.

One only needs to watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes, with the understanding of their very purposeful appeal to the amygdala (e.g., welfare queens! out-of-control vaginas! Kenyan Muslim! Benghazi! Freedom Fries! Jade Helm! Mufasa!) to come to grips with how futile your facts and rational arguments - essentially, attempts at compromise and bipartisanship with the insane. The only viable path is to await their eventual demise as a political force and do everything one can to accelerate it.

Such people do not offer objective assessments of real dangers. Aggressive or inattentive driving is much more dangerous than terrorism... Oh, well.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...But the new sheriff is a (Clang!)

Those poor whites appearing at Tea Party events must have enough to get to the events and to doff the 18th-century costumes. They must find that a black man as President is a refutation of the old assumption that those who would rule them would at least have the same level of pigmentation. They typically show gross ignorance of the American Revolution and 18th-century American politics.

Those poor whites have been left behind in the American political system for decades.



I have run away or driven away from two threats based upon allegations of homosexuality. I stood my ground on an incident in school in which one bigot bragged about bashing gays with a baseball bat because the brute had no baseball bat -- and I could make a lesson out of it. I united a left-wing concern for human rights with a right-wing concern for law and order. The brute didn't get the message, but others did.



Part of good education must include the ability to assess real dangers from manufactured fear. As a prime example, I know how frequent and dangerous bar-room brawls are... and I do not go into bars with suspect clienteles.



Such people do not offer objective assessments of real dangers. Aggressive or inattentive driving is much more dangerous than terrorism... Oh, well.

I don't think the majority of Tea Partiers give a rat's ass about the fact we have a (half) black President. Look at some of the black politicians and pundits who are part of that subculture. If it was up to the Tea Partiers, any one of them would make an ideal President. While I concede there are some racists embedded in the Tea Party, the Tea Party is mostly agnostic on the issues related to race. That is not what floats their boats.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

To answer your question, "strata" is the plural of "stratum".

Yeah, I knew it was one of the irregular ones, but I didn't have time to consult a dictionary.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Unfortunately, the desire for status symbols is stronger than ever among younger Indian immigrants. It's too early to say if their American-born kids will follow their parents or their peers.

While parents are a very strong influence in most people's lives, peer group thinking tends to be stronger and more long lasting. Generally speaking consumerism is stronger in rising economies like the BRIC countries than it is in the West. The reason for that is those countries are just now rising from a scarcity of consumer goods.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's my hope. But from the typical reaction I get when pointing out the myth of central govt spending restrained by revenue, I've come to the conclusion it is a more strongly held belief system than any religion or even feelings toward loved ones (okay, now my amygdala may be firing to many synapses). Such a widely (its pretty independent of place on the political spectrum) and deeply held belief system isn't likely going to go down without a revolution. But does it actually have to be bloody? I don't know.

I'm not most people. The cult of govmt spending being tied to revenue is a hold over from when currency was always a commodity (usually gold). Most countries have not backed their currencies in gold for a long long time.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Unfortunately, the desire for status symbols is stronger than ever among younger Indian immigrants. It's too early to say if their American-born kids will follow their parents or their peers.

It's very strong with the Mexicans too.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I'm not most people. The cult of govmt spending being tied to revenue is a hold over from when currency was always a commodity (usually gold). Most countries have not backed their currencies in gold for a long long time.

Our money is a commodity.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

While parents are a very strong influence in most people's lives, peer group thinking tends to be stronger and more long lasting. Generally speaking consumerism is stronger in rising economies like the BRIC countries than it is in the West. The reason for that is those countries are just now rising from a scarcity of consumer goods.

That's true for those individuals who prefer to essentially stick to themselves as a group and not venture out on their own or as a pair and learn more about themselves by doing their own things and making their own decisions and determining their own paths and essentially growing up, so to speak.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

When times are good, people graduate from cr@ppy jobs to not-so-cr@ppy jobs. People who work for fast-food places are generalists who do a variety of tasks, none expertly but fitting the rigid rules of the business -- customer contact, shipping and receiving, food processing, paperwork. Anyone who works in a fast-food place does one of these things better or likes one of those aspects of the job better. So going from a fast-food place to an office, a warehouse, a factory, or commission-based sales is typically an improvement through more specialization.

Specialization has usually been one of the keys to vocational improvement.

Thank you captain obvious.

Fascism promises the elites the destruction of workers' rights so that employers can work longer and harder under harsher conditions for less. It makes promises of economic growth that solves every question of inequality by allegedly creating so much prosperity that economic inequality is irrelevant. As one can expect, fascists find it far easier to meet the promises that they make to economic elites than to meet the promises that they make to the working class. Fascism typically makes contradictory promises on which it can never deliver, and to maintain power it must turn to brutal suppression of those who want the mass prosperity.

We have economic fascism without the torture chambers and shooting pits. Maybe that is far better than the purer fascism of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, etc. Sure. -7F is more pleasant than -27F.

I do not trust America's economic elites with the electoral process or civil liberties.

The problem with this statement is that what we have is not fascism. Not even "fascism without the torture chambers and shooting pits". There is no need for fascism. The bourgeoisie simply buys the politicans. Seriously we have the best democracy money can buy...not fascism. You need to get this through your head. We don't have fascism, fascism is capitalism in decay facing a strong Marxist presence.

The simple fact is that contradictory promises are not needed, the politicans are bought and sold like cattle, and do as they are told. Just like the other peons, in the view of the economic elites. If they don't do as they are told, they are fired in the next election when the donation checks don't come in.

Otherwise we are in agreement on the problem, well mostly.

Today, it's "Be thankful that things aren't worse than they now are. Blame Obama!"-- a few years ago it was still "Be thankful that things aren't worse than they now are. Dubya is the best that you can have!"

(Really, Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress were able to push some major reforms for two years. Now we have gridlock).

Basiclly the system is working as designed. The reason the US has the world's oldest written national constitution is because the guys who wrote it, formed the government in such a way as to make it as inefficient as possible. Gridlock is the natural state of the government, though I would point out not gridlock to the point of not being able to pass a budget. Time periods such as Roosevelt's first 100 days and so on are the exceptions to the general rule.

Over all I would strongly suggest that we are past due for a constitutional convention.

Business executives are selected, beyond competence in certain activities, unqualified belief in plutocracy at its rawest.

Cometence has never been a requirement to be bourgeois. Business executives are generally selected to maximize profits. How they do that is generally unimportant to capitalists. When they are not selected to maximize profits they are selected on the basis of who knows whom, who owes favors to whom. Intra-class politics.

That's one check upon who gets ahead in corporate America. I'd tell a kid to not trust Corporate America unless one has education that ensures a career based on a highly-honed skill... such as engineering or accounting. You might work in a fast-food place for a short-term goal -- but go as quickly as possible to anything but corporate America. Small business. Medicine. Non-profits. Clergy. Government -- even the military.

Yes and not a good one. Since corporations are legal entities and not people--the supreme court can kiss my black ass too--they do not have a moral code. In cases where the executives are selected on efficency and profit maximization (the fiduciary responsibility of corporations to their shareholders) sociopaths end up in charge.

He's a piece of work.

Not necessarily. In the first instance of my previous post, he is operating on his class interests. On the second instance he is merely deluded.

I have found that I am a pretty-good landscape photographer once I got a digital camera now that I don't have to mess with photo processing.

That would be cultural output.

Concurrence. If our production is to be done by robots, then we need to tax the Hell out of robot-based production just to meet the needs for Social Security, let alone lost income taxes from working people. The robots will never collect on Social Security, and they are certainly keeping people from having the old jobs of blue-collar manufacturing.

Ultimately, those things that are mass duplicated through machine only processes have their value fall to zero. (See my posts on the labor theory of value) Hence why people watch free movies online, and listen to free music online, and watch free tv and so on. A tax and spend structure (following the taxes=revenue=spending dynamic) would collapse in five minutes. Rather, if money is going to continue to determine distribution of goods then a garunteed income of some sort is needed.

I am secure enough emotionally, and alienated enough with status symbols, that I prefer a real Timex (a low-end, but serviceable watch) to a fake Rolex. I don't need the word "GUCCI" or "GIVENCHY" plastered across my chest. I recognize the word "luxury" as a signal of a rip-off instead of a virtue. I have gotten very cynical about advertising claims. The only business loyalty that I have is a negative loyalty -- I know brand names associated with Koch Industries and avoid buying them because the Koch family seeks to bring fascism to America. When I must buy imported clothing I look for "Made in India" because Koch Industries has no presence there; the polyester isn't poisoned. (OK, ownership and management of Procter&Gamble and Kimberley-Clark may be pieces of work, and India is no workers' paradise, but I certainly am not going to buy my own chains on behalf of the Koch family). I buy my soft drinks in cans because I know that Koch has a huge role in the making of plastics for bottles.

Unless one counts my Samsung phone, my HP computer (because it was a steal not because it was HP), and my name brand mods (the larger style of "e-cigarettes" or Personal Vaporizer if there are other vapers here that hate the word "e-cig" as much as I do) I have never owned name brand anything. I have no loyalty towards bands at all either. That said I also do not engage in individualist boycotting because it doesn't work. For every one of me there are 100 people who don't care.

As for purchasing soft drinks, I don't drink soft drinks. "Pop" is pure poison. That said, I prefer canned drinks (when I do buy drinks) over plastic bottles because I don't want unknown substances leaching into the product.

We are doing the same things but for different reasons here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTAhSJt_8x8

I strongly suggest listening to the lyrics, that aplies to everyone else here too.

In giant cities -- New York. You can easily pay more to park the car than on payments on an auto loan. Outside of the big cities your car is your means of bringing back groceries. But that is basic economics.

I do not live in a giant city and I do not need a car either, especially not to bring back groceries. Of course I also shop at the vegetable market every day. A plant based diet requires that the plants being used be as fresh as possible to not lose vital vitamins and minerals. Most of the stuff in the supermarket is highly processed garbage. That's why it can sit on a shelf for weeks.

Idealism? No. Just technology and the preference of beauty over the ugliness. Ugliness creates despair.

I agree that ugliness creates despair, but no amount of electronic imaging technology is going to make a fallen wall stand. I suppose you could fool yourself in the summer (or winter if you're in FL) but then winter comes and cold winds blow through the gaps that no amount of electrons can fill (or in my case summer comes and you're eaten alive by mosquitoes and get rained on every day at 3PM).

To imply that changing the image changes the reality is post-modernism at it's most primitive.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Our money is a commodity.

And what commodity is it exactly? Linen? Paper? Electrons? Where is its value derived? It is not a commodity in the sense that gold is, or a t-shirt is. The US dollar is a fiat currency backed by nothing, and it isn't even required to be used for transactions except for tax purposes. I could pay my vegetable man in brides if he'd accept them.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

That's true for those individuals who prefer to essentially stick to themselves as a group and not venture out on their own or as a pair and learn more about themselves by doing their own things and making their own decisions and determining their own paths and essentially growing up, so to speak.

Actually, by growing up, the peer group becomes a stronger influence over the parents. Who influences your choices more? Your parents or your mate and your friends?

In my case it is my boyfriend who has the strongest influence, followed by my friends. I don't even care what my parents feel about most issue. That is a typical attitude for a 36 year old man.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Generally speaking under capitalism, governmental workers are proletarians of the strata known as the "labor aristocracy". Non-profit workers are more difficult to place. It would depend on what they do. That is both the non-profit and the person working at said non-profit.

Under capitalism, non-profit workers would be categorized the same as for profit workers.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Under capitalism, non-profit workers would be categorized the same as for profit workers.

So those who volunteer their time would be slaves then?

Young people just about worship Steve Jobs, the king of selling people shit that they don't really need.
Plus there's the fact that the kids in Baltimore looted a store that sold ... brand name athletic shoes.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Actually, by growing up, the peer group becomes a stronger influence over the parents. Who influences your choices more? Your parents or your mate and your friends?

In my case it is my boyfriend who has the strongest influence, followed by my friends. I don't even care what my parents feel about most issue. That is a typical attitude for a 36 year old man.

Parents are both gone and are no longer here to influence me. My friends and I have our own lives, our own families, our own homes, our own problems, concerns and issues that are related to them. My friends and I have little to no influence over one another at this point and haven't had much influence over one another since we were juniors in high school. We began the process of separating from one another and going our own ways and doing our own things and making our own dicissions during high school. At 25, my wife and mother to a lesser extent were the only primary influences in my life.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

So those who volunteer their time would be slaves then?

No. Volunteers choose to donate their time and work for free and generally do so at their own leisure.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Our money is a commodity.

It's not even that. It's more an accounting device than anything else. It also acts as a transaction catalyst, making it possible for a barber to trade haircuts for bread, without having to find baker in need of tonsorial services.