Originally Posted by B Butler

There are too many folk dreaming about absolute prohibition, and too many folk dreaming about absolute obstruction of any gun laws. As Shakespeare once wrote, a pox on both their houses. I don't anticipate either group going away until the other group goes away first.

Dreams don't equal actions. I don't see any activism let alone proposals being made about gun prohibition. To think such activism exists, is misguided hysteria of the same kind that I predict the right-wingers will indulge in, even to the extent of fomenting violence on a fairly large scale.

Does the left wing not feel entitled to a regeneracy?

The left-wing regeneracy will be the only regeneracy. But violence may erupt in resistance to it. Call it a degeneracy?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Polling for Trump is a nice politically correct form of protest. I'm not seriously worried about a President Trump, though.

Expressing support for Trump is not politically correct. Hence the Trump Dump by corporate America.
I see his appeal as being a non-politician who doesn't give a crap about political correctness. Like I said, it would make for some fun debates.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Expressing support for Trump is not politically correct. Hence the Trump Dump by corporate America.
I see his appeal as being a non-politician who doesn't give a crap about political correctness. Like I said, it would make for some fun debates.

There's just not enough fun in our lives today. I agree, bring him on!

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Expressing support for Trump is not politically correct. Hence the Trump Dump by corporate America.
I see his appeal as being a non-politician who doesn't give a crap about political correctness. Like I said, it would make for some fun debates.

I'm not looking for entertainment value out of this circus, but a president. On the other hand, the circus is scheduled to run for a long long time. We can have him stir the pot a little for a while without too much loss. Still, while is pushing the media agenda onto stuff like the birther nonsense, everybody can avoid talk of serious issues and the nobodies with ideas but no name recognition find it harder to get heard.

On the third hand, he is making the GOP clowns look more like clowns. Not a total bad thing.

I don't really care all that much, but I don't care for it at all.

Mikebert

No, no, no, silly Boomer, read what I said and not what you wanted to see.

This is not the Cold War. Neither China nor Russia adheres to revolutionary ideologies anymore. Even Iran is long past the ideals of its founders. They don't want to rule the world, for precisely the reasons you mentioned (or, in Russia's case, their own experience under the USSR). The only people still adhering to a revolutionary, universalist belief system these days are us and the jihadis. Which, in our case as the reigning hegemon, is actually incredibly destabilizing (case in point: Iraq, Libya, et al).

No, and if you actually read their rhetoric (The Vineyard of the Saker site is pretty good for including not just Russian nationalist stuff but bits from Hassan Rasrallah, The Ayatollah, and Chinese officials), what they're trying to do is be the local hegemons of their own region. That's what the Ukraine conflict, the Georgia War, the South China Sea disputes, Iran's increasingly violent proxy conflict with Saudi Arabia, even really the Eurocrisis (with Germany playing the role, however awkwardly and half-heartedly), the formation of the SCO (soon to include Pakistan AND India) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment fund and BRICS New Development Bank all are, an attempt to rewrite the rules of the game to consolidate their own spheres of influence. The trouble the revisionist powers have is that in each case there are military alliances and US military forces hemming them in, as well as a host of institutions like the SWIFT payment system, the IMF, etc. designed to prop up a Washington dominated system for the entire world (for which there is much that could be said, but it is an imperial project nonetheless). That's where the risk for conflict is, barring the election of a Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul type to dismantle it from the inside (which I think unlikely). And, unlike Britain in the 1850s and 60s, we have far more entangling alliances and overseas bases that risk drawing us into these regional conflicts more deeply.

That's why I tend to suspect that the impetus for the unwinding of US hegemony will be catalyzed from the outside. Which is not to say that it couldn't spark a domestic movement that takes credit for the results, in a similar but distinct way to that in which the rising classes took credit for the Glorious Revolution.

Just my two cents.

Edited to avoid confusion as to time period.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well.... I don't know...

He doesn't quite have that same "deer in the headlights" look.

-- he thinks Americans should work longer hours. He's not only an idiot but an out of touch one at that

Hi Teacher! It's been a rough week & I've only had time to post a few one liners here & there. So I waited til the weekend to give a response your thoughtful posts deserve.

I already stated that Bernie is running as Dem to get electoral votes. Actually he's running old school, like the Dems back in the 60s & 70s. I think that's why ppl are glomming onto him. I know that's why I'm supporting him. The question is, will the DNC support him if he wins their primaries. They threw Hillary under the bus after she won the primaries back in 2008 (& they may very well do it again next year) if they did it to one of their own, they are more than capable of screwing somebody who's merely running as a Dem to get electoral votes.

Both you & M&L mentioned Gene McCarthy. What neither of you mentioned is that the nomination that year (1968) went to the VP Hubert Humphrey. Which brings us to Uncle Joe. Joe has run for Prez a few times, but never made it past the 1st few primaries. He lobbied very hard for the veep spot back in 2008. As a back door to the presidency, perhaps? Joe has been preoccupied with the illness & recent death of his son, but now that he is coming out mourning (he was spotted @ the World Cup in Canada) he should be announcing soon if he is running or not. Infact I'm thinking that's why the Dem clown car isn't as full as the repug's clown car- potential candidates are waiting for Uncle Joe to give them the green lite- or announce that he is running himself. If the latter's the case, expect him to play the veep card to become the Dem nominee like Fritzy did back in 1984. We all know how that worked out. For that matter Hubert didn't win in 1968 either.

but as Alioth has pointed out, this is a 4T. Rules are defrenstrated. If Bernie does become a juggernaut, & has the backing of the ppl (ie, they will walk out of the party, like the Pumas did back in 2008, except this exodus will be much larger) the DNC just may run him in the GE.

we'll have to see

ps as to your 3rd question, apparently somebody is taking Bernie seriously. I read an article earlier this week about some dudes looking into the City of Burlington archives while Bernie was mayor, apparently to dig up dirt. Both the Hillary & O'Malley campaigns have denied it was any of their workers. If I can find the article I'll post a link. Oh & the O'Malley folx have run some negative ads targeting Bernie. Smacks of jealousy to me

We need a strong government which would build up our industry, Military and infrastructure. We need to cut Medicare and social security. We need to establish social programs for the poor and programs to help Minorities and young people. We need a strong leader who would sign advantageous treaties with a variety of nations but would not rely on a mere treaty but fundamentally rely on our national strength; one who understands that treaties are for the purposes of gaining advantages against your rivals, but are mere toilet paper in terms of trust or reliance on them.

This makes me a Bernie fan. Instead of piling on Jeb, he turns it into an opportunity to discuss the issue. Nice.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...948.html?ml=po

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

obama did all he could have done, given the reluctance of congress to do more. He had no magic wand to reach these guys; no-one could have had one.

--Eric, I'm sorry, I should of clarified. Where I come from, we call obamacare obamacrap. And it is, unless you're an insurance company or Big Pharma. That is why the Dems lost the 2010 midterms. They should never have passed such a god awful law

It would be cool. It will be fun to hope for it for a while. It's a good thread, though it seems to be bringing out the worst in a few of the posters.

-- thanx. I'm really pleased with the legs it has grown

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

This makes me a Bernie fan. Instead of piling on Jeb, he turns it into an opportunity to discuss the issue. Nice.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...948.html?ml=po

-- yes! I agree. I think that's why ppl are supporting Bernie, he discusses issues. He doesn't sling mud or ad hominems

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

We need a strong government which would build up our industry, Military and infrastructure. We need to cut Medicare and social security. We need to establish social programs for the poor and programs to help Minorities and young people. We need a strong leader who would sign advantageous treaties with a variety of nations but would not rely on a mere treaty but fundamentally rely on our national strength; one who understands that treaties are for the purposes of gaining advantages against your rivals, but are mere toilet paper in terms of trust or reliance on them.

-- but if you cut Medicare & SS then the old folx will be poor. Think of them as poverty prevention programs. btw, ppl pay into SS while they work. It should be there for us when we retire since it's our​ $. Leave it alone

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Mikebert, No, no, no, silly Boomer, read what I said and not what you wanted to see.

I did read what you wrote. You said "the overthrow of the financial elite and the end of our continuing conflicts overseas, ie the end of the empire, is going to be spearheaded by foreign actors and not a domestic uprising." You implied that the downfall of the (American) financial elite will result from foreign, not domestic actors.

This is not the Cold War. Neither China nor Russia adheres to revolutionary ideologies anymore.

That's right.

No, and if you actually read their rhetoric (The Vineyard of the Saker site is pretty good for including not just Russian nationalist stuff but bits from Hassan Rasrallah, The Ayatollah, and Chinese officials), what they're trying to do is be the local hegemons of their own region.

That's right.

That's where the risk for conflict is, barring the election of a Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul type to dismantle it from the inside (which I think unlikely). And, unlike Britain in the 1850s and 60s, we have far more entangling alliances and overseas bases that risk drawing us into these regional conflicts more deeply.

Yeah. I long ago argued that the military empire is going to have to go in the 4T.

That's why I tend to suspect that the impetus for the unwinding of US hegemony will be catalyzed from the outside.

But you have not addressed why any of this should affect financial elites. You seem to making a connection between being a military elite hegemon and a financial hegemon. Yes, in the past there was a connection. But in that same past other powers spent a lot more on their military than they do now. Something has changed. Nobody (except the US) wants to play the Modelski leadership game anymore.

You implied that foreign actions will trigger an American response that will collapse our military empire and that this would be an "overthrow of the financial elites". Ending our empire will not of itself have any impact on the health of the financial elite--unless in the collapse, rebel factions of the US military overthrow the US government. But that would be a domestic insurrection in my book.

Which is not to say that it couldn't spark a domestic movement that takes credit for the results, in a similar but distinct way to that in which the rising classes took credit for the Glorious Revolution.

The Glorious Revolution accomplished no "overthrow of the financial elite", it was the victory of the capitalist elite, akin to our Civil War. The old Modeslki hegemonic cycles aren't going to hold anymore because nobody except the US wants to play the game anymore.

I did read what you wrote. You said "the overthrow of the financial elite and the end of our continuing conflicts overseas, ie the end of the empire, is going to be spearheaded by foreign actors and not a domestic uprising." You implied that the downfall of the (American) financial elite will result from foreign, not domestic actors.

I did, and what I took umbrage to was the notion that I was suggesting another power was trying to seize global hegemony.

That's right.

Ditto on both, just had to make sure we didn't have any weird Boomer hang ups about what time period we're actually in. It's a continuing problem around here.

Yeah. I long ago argued that the military empire is going to have to go in the 4T.

Yeah, and it's going to have to be pushed a little harder than just another VIetnam/Iraq type of situation.

But you have not addressed why any of this should affect financial elites. You seem to making a connection between being a military elite hegemon and a financial hegemon. Yes, in the past there was a connection. But in that same past other powers spent a lot more on their military than they do now. Something has changed. Nobody (except the US) wants to play the Modelski leadership game anymore.

This time is not different. Go back and read the stuff that Podobnik, Goldstein, Chase-Dunn or Modelski wrote in the late '80s and '90s, it's following the exact same course they laid out for a hegemonic transition war (in this case, I suspect, leading to a fractured global order rather than a unitary hegemon. Check the literature, that is a thing.), 'cept with China playing the role they were guessing for Germany or Japan (the two chief economic rivals to the US at the time). The growth in Chinese military spending has far exceeded GDP growth over the past 15 years or so, and they have the luxury of concentrating their forces in a single theater against a particular target. They also have the largest shipbuilding industry in the war, and a booming navy. They've been in the coalition building phases just as long we have been in the deconcentration phase. It's textbook.

You implied that foreign actions will trigger an American response that will collapse our military empire and that this would be an "overthrow of the financial elites". Ending our empire will not of itself have any impact on the health of the financial elite--unless in the collapse, rebel factions of the US military overthrow the US government. But that would be a domestic insurrection in my book.

*Shrug*

Most of the goods producing companies on Wall Street are dependent on foreign markets for consumers and/or labor. China is readying the launch of their CIPS alternative to the SWIFT transaction system this year, and given the recent weaponization of the same by the US against Iran (and threatened against Russia), I think they could get a lot of buy in. I suspect financial war will start, with naval clashes and cyberway (also damaging to the financial elite) in the future. Nukes? Not necessary, but a concern.

The Glorious Revolution accomplished no "overthrow of the financial elite", it was the victory of the capitalist elite, akin to our Civil War. The old Modeslki hegemonic cycles aren't going to hold anymore because nobody except the US wants to play the game anymore.

To go along with the last point from the previous selection as well as this, you're being too narrow. I know who won the Glorious Revolution, my whole point about the original reference was to give an example of an internal revolt that was resolved by foreign actors (in the way that the competition between Whigs and Tories was resolved in part by the invasion of William of Orange and not Louis the 14th), though this time in a less happy format. Basically, all I am pushing against is the notion that the present elite is going to be displaced by Americans without an exogenous shock.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- but if you cut Medicare & SS then the old folx will be poor. Think of them as poverty prevention programs. btw, ppl pay into SS while they work. It should be there for us when we retire since it's our​ $. Leave it alone

Please ignore the resident Fascist crackpot.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I did, and what I took umbrage to was the notion that I was suggesting another power was trying to seize global hegemony.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

This time is not different...it's following the exact same course they laid out for a hegemonic transition (in this case, I suspect, leading to a fractured global order rather than a unitary hegemon). The growth in Chinese military spending has far exceeded GDP growth over the past 15 years or so, and they have the luxury of concentrating their forces in a single theater against a particular target. They also have the largest shipbuilding industry in the war, and a booming navy.

Jordan #1 says no other power is seeking a hegemonic struggle. Jordan #2 says China is.

They've been in the coalition building phases just as long we have been in the deconcentration phase. It's textbook.

It is during the delegitimization phase that other power seek to become regional powers (see bolded).

Actually what is happening fits more with my alternative hegemonic cycle that I proposed about 15 years ago. That model has the 1980's as a global war period. There was no hot war, just a virtual one that the Soviet Union lost. After 1991 the US was again in a world power phase. During the delegitimization phase (ca. 2010-2030) China would emerge as a regional power, and achieve rough parity of GDP with the US. The US would let China have Taiwan without a shot being fired.

I do not think actual wars are part of the equation any more. Look the US just fought a medium-sized war in the Middle East and we cut taxes. A nation seriously at war to win raises taxes. We did for WW I, WW I, Korea. For Vietnam it was mixed we cut taxes in 1965 before the war and then belatedly hiked them in 1969 and then cut them again in 1970. Looks like we weren't serious about Vietnam. This same thing has been the case for every war since then.

The US government lacks the de facto sovereign power to prevail in any but the smallest and most inconsequential contests. There is no need for a hegemonic struggle. When the time comes the US will just capitulate because in the end it does not matter. American elites are hardly even American any more.

The problem is internal rot. No external agent is going to swoop in and somehow "trigger" some sort of regenerative process. Either we do the job or we do not. If we "stand up" to "foreign aggression", then we will have decided to not do.

In order for China to develop fully it has to wean itself off the heroin of export-led growth. That is their internal problem for this 4T which they will either do or not do (most countries fail to do this). They will probably need to gin up some powerful anti-American sentiment to create the authority for them to go up against their own powerful elites.

Originally Posted by B Butler

There are too many folk dreaming about absolute prohibition, and too many folk dreaming about absolute obstruction of any gun laws. As Shakespeare once wrote, a pox on both their houses. I don't anticipate either group going away until the other group goes away first.

"Repeal and replace" -- basically, rewrite it so that it at the least has a non-discrimination clause. There were state efforts to impose gun control -- only upon blacks.


Does the left wing not feel entitled to a regeneracy?



But it does happen on rare occasions? [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- he thinks Americans should work longer hours. He's not only an idiot but an out of touch one at that

He said nothing about more pay for the work. In view of what the GOP has done over the last few years, I always assume the worst.

Maybe the idea is to get people to do voluntary, unpaid overtime -- with employers getting the right to work people those 'voluntary' hours because employers will get the 'voluntary' choice to fire those who don't 'voluntarily' put in an added two or three hours of unpaid labor each day.

The Republican Party stands for the worst in our economic elites.

Hey -- I'm already in "Michigrim"... I might as well be in Canada, eh?

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- yes! I agree. I think that's why ppl are supporting Bernie, he discusses issues. He doesn't sling mud or ad hominems

I'm genuinely impressed. If American voters can recognize his sincerity, I'll be even more impressed (with the populace.)

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

He said nothing about more pay for the work. In view of what the GOP has done over the last few years, I always assume the worst.

Maybe the idea is to get people to do voluntary, unpaid overtime -- with employers getting the right to work people those 'voluntary' hours because employers will get the 'voluntary' choice to fire those who don't 'voluntarily' put in an added two or three hours of unpaid labor each day.

The Republican Party stands for the worst in our economic elites.

Hey -- I'm already in "Michigrim"... I might as well be in Canada, eh?

--you'd probably be better off in Canada

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The Glorious Revolution accomplished no "overthrow of the financial elite", it was the victory of the capitalist elite, akin to our Civil War. The old Modeslki hegemonic cycles aren't going to hold anymore because nobody except the US wants to play the game anymore.

I'd second Mike's evaluation of the Glorious Revolution. This is one place where Marx might have got something right. The Robber Barons generally take power from the old nobility before the People / Workers / 99 percent take on the Robber Barons.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- yes! I agree. I think that's why ppl are supporting Bernie, he discusses issues. He doesn't sling mud or ad hominems

What? Is he allowed to do that while running as a major party candidate? Isn't there a Constitutional Amendment or something?

Originally Posted by marypoza

--you'd probably be better off in Canada

Soon after my father dies, Toronto here I come!

Originally Posted by marypoza

--Eric, I'm sorry, I should of clarified. Where I come from, we call obamacare obamacrap. And it is, unless you're an insurance company or Big Pharma. That is why the Dems lost the 2010 midterms. They should never have passed such a god awful law

It was the extent of reform which the Republicans and DINOs and generally the powers-that-be allowed to be passed; originally a Republican proposal. It was better than nothing, in my opinion.

I disagree that those who voted against Democrats and for the Tea Party and the other extreme-right-wing Republicans in 2010 were liberals who thought Obamacare ceded too much power and wealth to the insurance and pharmacy barons. Conservatives and deceived "moderates" who thought Obamacare was "socialism" came out to vote, while young liberals who thought it was too tame and gave too much away to the big money barons just stayed home.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It was the extent of reform which the Republicans and DINOs and generally the powers-that-be allowed to be passed; originally a Republican proposal. It was better than nothing, in my opinion.

I disagree that those who voted against Democrats and for the Tea Party and the other extreme-right-wing Republicans in 2010 were liberals who thought Obamacare ceded too much power and wealth to the insurance and pharmacy barons. Conservatives and deceived "moderates" who thought Obamacare was "socialism" came out to vote, while young liberals who thought it was too tame and gave too much away to the big money barons just stayed home.

-- I agree with your analysis here. I didn't mean to imply that (deceived) Dem voters (yeah there were quite a few) up & voted for repugs, altho the swing voters did. Dems, as you point out, largely stayed home.