Ray Peat On Donald Trump

[Queequeg]

But now you are introducing politics into the discussion. I'm not trying to split hairs or be a jerk, but this is where I think people are reading too much into the RP quote that kicked this off. I only see Peat saying that he wants to see class being the centerpiece of the conversation. I don't see him advocating for the politics of anybody.

The possible exception is his appreciation of Trump opposing war with Russia. In and of itself, that is fine. However, I didn't actually see anybody advocating war with Russia. And now Trump wants to multiply our nuke capabilities. Of course, he says he doesn't want to use them, but neither did Hilary, or any other candidate I am aware of. So, so much for Trump "changing the course of the empire". And I don't think its because some nefarious intelligence community has manipulated him into this position. Plus Trump and Bannon make more noise about armed conflict with China than any other president or candidate has ever made about armed conflict with Russia.

You take issue because I am introducing politics into a political discussion? That was my opinion, not Ray's. I was only adding my thoughts to your comment that both Trump and Bernie spoke on class issues. How you speak about something is as important as what you speak about. What exactly Ray believes on this has puzzled the forum for a long time. From just the OP it seems clear that he does support Trump's more protectionist views.

 

[managing]

You take issue because I am introducing politics into a political discussion? That was my opinion, not Ray's. I was only adding my thoughts to your comment that both Trump and Bernie spoke on class issues. How you speak about something is as important as what you speak about. What exactly Ray believes on this has puzzled the forum for a long time. From just the OP it seems clear that he does support Trump's more protectionist views.

Not really objecting. But making an important distinction. If you "Understand the culture as a control system" canned rhetoric like "handout vs hand up" presents an illusion of options. What flavor would you like your control system to be?

As for protectionism, he clearly sees it as inconsistent with globalism. But it isn't all clear that he views protectionism as a proper antidote to globalism.

 

[Queequeg]

Not really objecting. But making an important distinction. If you "Understand the culture as a control system" canned rhetoric like "handout vs hand up" presents an illusion of options. What flavor would you like your control system to be?

As for protectionism, he clearly sees it as inconsistent with globalism. But it isn't all clear that he views protectionism as a proper antidote to globalism.

That's why I prefaced my comment with "if they are not both full of it." Also for that reason, I think canned rhetorical phrases were quite appropriate to describe both Trump and Bernie's views.

On protectionism, the problem with any solution offered is that it is always implemented in such a way that it ends up causing more harm than good. We need to be somewhat more protectionist but the last time they offered that as a solution it didn't end up so well circa 1929.

 

[managing]

That's why I prefaced my comment with "if they are not both full of it." Also for that reason, I think canned rhetorical phrases were quite appropriate to describe both Trump and Bernie's views.

On protectionism, the problem with any solution offered is that it is always implemented in such a way that it ends up causing more harm than good. We need to be somewhat more protectionist but the last time they offered that as a solution it didn't end up so well circa 1929.

I'm with you on the first part.

However, I'm not convinced that globalism and protectionism are dichotomous. The problem with immature globalism is it perpetuates the class inequities of imperialism at a whole new level. But protectionism does nothing to unravel this. "Mature" globalism ought to unravel class inequities entirely. But the problem here is it is thoroughly untested.

 

[Queequeg]

I'm with you on the first part.

However, I'm not convinced that globalism and protectionism are dichotomous. The problem with immature globalism is it perpetuates the class inequities of imperialism at a whole new level. But protectionism does nothing to unravel this. "Mature" globalism ought to unravel class inequities entirely. But the problem here is it is thoroughly untested.

If you "understand the culture as a control system" no solution offered is a real solution. Globalism is a trap. It is a world without poverty but also a world without a middle class and without freedom. Class inequities will be less for the majority of people because we will all be equally miserable. The ruling elite however will do just fine.

 

[Wagner83]

Can you supply reference, quote, or something that indicates Peat is optimistic that something good will come of Trum admin, or even that it is a "radical change"?

I'm referring to the original post, and if you read mine you'll see I never said he was pro Trump or optimistic about him.

 

[managing]

I'm referring to the original post, and if you read mine you'll see I never said he was pro Trump or optimistic about him.

OK. I had understood this: "it seems like he saw this radical change as something which could bring, later on, a deeper reflection on how a government should actually work." narrowly to mean that RP likes Trump. I like the broader interpretation (which I now think you meant) which is simply that RP appreciates a shake up as an inflection point rather than an assumption that Trump will intentionally do good (or bad).

 

[managing]

If you "understand the culture as a control system" no solution offered is a real solution. Globalism is a trap. It is a world without poverty but also a world without a middle class and without freedom. Class inequities will be less for the majority of people because we will all be equally miserable. The ruling elite however will do just fine.

I definitely agree with your first sentence, and was my main point. But if protectionism is not the antidote to globalism (and it isn't) then what is?

I don't share your pessimism about globalism though. The problem with globalism is there is a massive lag time before the means of production come back home. That is what I mean by "immature" globalism. In the meantime, there is a great deal of localized (but not necessarily limited) instability that manifests itself as things like an eroding middle class. The challenge is eliminating the pain while globalism evolves into a radical localism. Once the Chinese, Middle East, Africa, etc have worked their way out of poverty, there are no incentives for globalism as we know it (other than perhaps exploitation of natural resources). Why make something in Mexico or China if it is going to cost just as much? And then you would have to ship it long distances. Your assumption is that if the rest of the world is pulled up, we are pulled down (I am assuming you are in the US). But the cold hard data doesn't support this.

As for the "ruling elite", that problem will never be solved by trying to solve it. Protectionism will surely strengthen it. But I can say this. If and when mol everyone has the same economic situation (and yes, it is something we would recognize as middle class) the machinations of international politics (as we know it today) will be pretty much irrelevant. Yes, other things would emerge which somebody would feel compelled to control. But these would almost certainly be smaller stakes in terms of their impact on humanity.

Whether we can survive to that point is my only question. I think the faster we intentionally head toward it, the more likely we will make it. And protectionism is unequivocally a step in the wrong direction.

 

[zztr]

Dividing the people along ethnic, religious or other identity lines is the oldest trick in the book to dis-empower us. I don't think that Ray is the naive one.

Nothing else has ever happened in history. It is human nature. It's almost a cliche point that WWI stunned the marxist idealogues as peoples suicidally rallied around their ethno-national identities and not along class interests. Apparently peat still didn't get the memo and continues to think in terms of marxist class precepts.

You see the same pattern over and over again through history and all over the world. To talk seriously in terms of these marxist ideas at this points is extreme naivete. It is also ridiculous to attribute the pattern to the CIA, or whatever.

Despite all of Trump's focus on the power elite and Hillary's obvious subservience to it, ethnic minorities overwhelmingly voted for Hillary because the Democrats have branded themselves the party of the ethnic minority. Middle class, non-white citizens voted for Hillary against their economic interests because of identity. This is simply inevitable and not a clever manipulation of the elite. It's simply what happens in multi-ethnic societies.

 

[Ledo]

Dude, I think you are hearing only what you want to hear. The question was about authoritarianism. I think he could be paraphrased as saying the system itself is authoritarian and whomever the president would be is going to be a lynch pin in the authoritarian system. He is definitely refuting a popular notion that Hilary would have somehow magically been less authoritarian. But, uh, this is anti-government, not pro-Trump.

No flippin way! Just read the words. Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

 

[Ledo]

The current globalist system for the most part is highly protectionist. Don't let the paid trolls on this forum work any slight of hand straw men. Most trading nations today have major protectionist trade barriers when one attempts to sell into their country. The fact that the USA doesn't is because a large class of people are making big money on the selling out of our great country. They are traitors and not working in the best interest of our country.

It is with those countries dumping into the environment and employing child and slave labor and employing protectionist trade barriers that we will rightfully put up our own barriers.

Nothing to do with globalism.

 

[managing]

No flippin way! Just read the words. Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

Oh, well, there is no arguing with that logic .

 

[managing]

The current globalist system for the most part is highly protectionist. Don't let the paid trolls on this forum work any slight of hand straw men. Most trading nations today have major protectionist trade barriers when one attempts to sell into their country. The fact that the USA doesn't is because a large class of people are making big money on the selling out of our great country. They are traitors and not working in the best interest of our country.

It is with those countries dumping into the environment and employing child and slave labor and employing protectionist trade barriers that we will rightfully put up our own barriers.

Nothing to do with globalism.

There is a lot to unpack here.

Can you point out which members are paid trolls? I'd like to avoid them.

Which countries have unreciprocated protectionist barriers against American G&S? We should do something about that.

Who is making big money selling out our great country? That ought not be allowed.

What countries are selling child and/or slave made products into the US? I don't want to buy those.

 

[Ledo]

Oh, well, there is no arguing with that logic .

Sure there is. All you have to do is refute ray peat's words as a non endorsement of trump as I and others have clearly should is the case in other posts in this tread.

Or were you hoping no one would notice with your posited globalism vs. protectionism straw man?

 

[Ledo]

There is a lot to unpack here.

Can you point out which members are paid trolls? I'd like to avoid them.

You?

Which countries have unreciprocated protectionist barriers against American G&S? We should do something about that.

China, Germany, Japan and many, most others

Who is making big money selling out our great country? That ought not be allowed.

Hillary Clinton, corporate america.

What countries are selling child and/or slave made products into the US? I don't want to buy those.

Half of asia and central america amoung others.

Did you overlook the enviromental dumping being employed by countries selling into america for the purpose of gaining a trading advantage. That ought not be allowed too right?

 

[Queequeg]

I definitely agree with your first sentence, and was my main point. But if protectionism is not the antidote to globalism (and it isn't) then what is?

I don't share your pessimism about globalism though. The problem with globalism is there is a massive lag time before the means of production come back home. That is what I mean by "immature" globalism. In the meantime, there is a great deal of localized (but not necessarily limited) instability that manifests itself as things like an eroding middle class. The challenge is eliminating the pain while globalism evolves into a radical localism. Once the Chinese, Middle East, Africa, etc have worked their way out of poverty, there are no incentives for globalism as we know it (other than perhaps exploitation of natural resources). Why make something in Mexico or China if it is going to cost just as much? And then you would have to ship it long distances. Your assumption is that if the rest of the world is pulled up, we are pulled down (I am assuming you are in the US). But the cold hard data doesn't support this.

As for the "ruling elite", that problem will never be solved by trying to solve it. Protectionism will surely strengthen it. But I can say this. If and when mol everyone has the same economic situation (and yes, it is something we would recognize as middle class) the machinations of international politics (as we know it today) will be pretty much irrelevant. Yes, other things would emerge which somebody would feel compelled to control. But these would almost certainly be smaller stakes in terms of their impact on humanity.

Whether we can survive to that point is my only question. I think the faster we intentionally head toward it, the more likely we will make it. And protectionism is unequivocally a step in the wrong direction.

The antidote to globalism is fair trade. What we have now is not fair or free trade. Its a scam to remove all economic disparities between the countries at the expense of the richer nations. The cold hard data does show that the middle class is getting squeezed and that real wages have stagnated. People in the US are doing much worse while the third world has greatly benefited. If you believe in globalism you have some interesting bedfellows such as David Rockefellar and George Soros. I would rather stand with Ray Peat.

 

[managing]

Sure there is. All you have to do is refute ray peat's words as a non endorsement of trump as I and others have clearly should is the case in other posts in this tread.

Or were you hoping no one would notice with your posited globalism vs. protectionism straw man?

To be sure, I am laughing at you, not with you on this.

By the way, I think you mean "false dichotomy" not "straw man". A straw man argument is something entirely different. You may find this resource will give you many more dismissive invectives AND help you use them somewhat correctly:
Logical Fallacies

Now, as for the false dichotomy, you may recognize this quote of me from above: "However, I'm not convinced that globalism and protectionism are dichotomous." So, uh, no, I'm arguing the opposite of what you are accusing me of.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Despite all of Trump's focus on the power elite and Hillary's obvious subservience to it, ethnic minorities overwhelmingly voted for Hillary because the Democrats have branded themselves the party of the ethnic minority. Middle class, non-white citizens voted for Hillary against their economic interests because of identity. This is simply inevitable and not a clever manipulation of the elite. It's simply what happens in multi-ethnic societies.

Interesting side note. Black Americans have always been against war and American imperialism. Especially vietnam and the Iraq wars. But they did a heel turn when Obama came into office and for the first time supported attacks on the middle east more than whites, whose support fell during Obamas reign.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

The antidote to globalism is fair trade. What we have now is not fair or free trade. Its a scam to remove all economic disparities between the countries at the expense of the richer nations. The cold hard data does show that the middle class is getting squeezed and that real wages have stagnated. People in the US are doing much worse while the third world has greatly benefited. If you believe in globalism you have some interesting bedfellows such as David Rockefellar and George Soros. I would rather stand with Ray Peat.

People in the US have only been doing well because the third world was doing terribly. What do you think the petrodollar is based off if not stolen oil? Who do you think makes your phones and trinkets?

 

[Queequeg]

Nothing else has ever happened in history. It is human nature. It's almost a cliche point that WWI stunned the marxist idealogues as peoples suicidally rallied around their ethno-national identities and not along class interests. Apparently peat still didn't get the memo and continues to think in terms of marxist class precepts.

You see the same pattern over and over again through history and all over the world. To talk seriously in terms of these marxist ideas at this points is extreme naivete. It is also ridiculous to attribute the pattern to the CIA, or whatever.

Despite all of Trump's focus on the power elite and Hillary's obvious subservience to it, ethnic minorities overwhelmingly voted for Hillary because the Democrats have branded themselves the party of the ethnic minority. Middle class, non-white citizens voted for Hillary against their economic interests because of identity. This is simply inevitable and not a clever manipulation of the elite. It's simply what happens in multi-ethnic societies.

If you don't understand divide and conquer then you don't understand history or politics. A quote from a dictator masquerading as a republican is not very convincing.
Pit race against race, religion against religion, prejudice against prejudice. Divide and conquer! We must not let that happen here. Eleanor Roosevelt

The greatest weapon the colonial powers have used in the past against our people has always been his ability to divide and conquer. If I take my hand and slap you, it might sting you because these digits are separated. But all I have to do to put you back in your place is bring those digits together.
Malcolm X