Home > Lifestyle, Society, Miscellaneous > Society > Political Talk, Alternative World Theories > Ray Peat On Donald Trump

Ray Peat On Donald Trump

  1. GM: The US has just elected Donald Trump as president. During his campaign, Mr. Trump openly supported authoritarian sentiments like capital punishment, ethnocentricity, military action, and even nuclear weapons — many of the same things you were concerned by in the ’50s. Do you think we are seeing a resurgence in authoritarianism in the West, or is there another aspect to the overall picture?

    Ray Peat: I think much of the outrage concerning Trump’s election is driven by his clear opposition to war with Russia, and his protectionist opposition to “globalization.” Those issues are essential for the ruling class, so everything will be done to interfere with any attempt Trump makes to change the empire’s course.

    No US president has ever opposed capital punishment or nuclear weapons, and any verbal opposition to militarism has been hypocritical. Eisenhower’s belated 1961 warning about the military-industrial complex followed 8 years of trying to make “preventive” nuclear destruction of the Soviet Union possible, and the destruction of democratic or independent governments in Iran, Guatemala, Thailand, Laos, the Congo, Turkey, and the preparation of an invasion of Cuba; Kennedy’s campaign called for a more aggressive militarism. I think any resurgence of authoritarianism in the US could be dated from the 1944 Democratic Party convention, that imposed Harry Truman as vice president. There was a slight respite under Carter, during which, with Brzezinski’s guidance, the US created the mujahideen (precursor to Al-Qaeda) to depose Afghanistan’s secular government, and its policy of equal rights for women.

    Presidents, including Clinton and Obama, have been saying that the US is a post-racist society, and that no remedial federal activity is needed. Now the Democrats have the partisan stimulus to start advocating concrete measures to improve the situation for blacks and other minorities, things that they opposed when they had opportunities.

    The huge amount of money the CIA had from the Marshall Plan allowed them, starting around 1950, to shape the culture and political movements in the US, providing carrots to complement the FBI’s sticks. Their biggest achievement has probably been to obliterate coherent thinking about the meaning of “left” and “right” in politics. People with policies very much like Mussolini’s call themselves liberals, and promote war. The culture has been shaped to exclude the idea of class from political thinking. Several years ago, when John Edwards’ spoke of social class issues during his campaign for the presidency, the media immediately stopped treating him as a viable candidate. Trump’s focus on class issues helped to enfuriate his opposition, but didn’t stop people from voting. If class becomes a continuing part of political discussion, it might lead toward a restoration of democracy.


    “Identity politics” has been a powerful way to distract people from their economic interests. As soon as M.L. King made the issue class, rather than race, he was killed. Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion.

    The advertising industry powerfully shapes the culture, and this effect would be weakened without the broadcast monopolies. Assigning some broadcast channels for political campaigns would greatly reduce the cost of political campaigns, and the associated influence of money on policy.


    GM: Are there any other remarks you’d like to make in closing?

    Ray Peat: I’m hoping that the recent electoral shock will stimulate some new kinds of critical philosophical thinking. Understanding the culture as a control system, programmed to maintain the class system, is a first step toward discovering what we, as organisms in a half-destroyed ecosystem, really need, and what we can want and intend.


    https://reformermag.com/on-culture-government-and-social-class-306dfe8af599#.lpn9hqs0o
     
  2. This is as big a bunch of gobbledy-gook from *anyone* as I've read in a long time. Really disappointing from someone as discerning as Peat can be.

    There was NO ELECTORAL SHOCK. Almost 100% of Hilary's "popular vote" came from the huge population centers on the coast, that are geographically in the huge minority. Trump won something like over 2000 counties nationwide...Hilary won like 481. Is that a "minority" of the country? I think not.

    The electoral college was designed to prevent large population centers that are geographically compact from tyrannizing and forcing their views on the rest of the country. Large population centers being particularly tone deaf when it comes to the needs and concerns of those who actually produce the things that are parasitized by the city dwellers. Also, large population centers are particularly vulnerable to the machinations of demogogues. Take a look at the history of ancient Rome for examples.

    Bottom line: electoral college worked *perfectly*. It's a check and a balance against tyranny.

    And just cuz you don't like the outcome this time, be very, very wary of changing it. It may work in your favor some day. Electoral college as a construct is an objective balance, not a tool for any given ideology.

    Someone as ostensibly smart as Peat should know that.

    But I guess that's his Marxist leanings showing. I mostly overlook them because of his other valuable contributions, but dumb remarks and thinking like this should not be given a pass without commenting on them.
     
  3. He didn't mention the electoral college, so I'm not sure what you're referencing.

    I do think his point that Trump tried to frame the issues in terms of social class is accurate, but the actual take away from the election was that non-whites in America will overwhelmingly vote for ethnic interests over class interests. It's not a top down system of control imposed by the CIA or whatever else he was insinuating. This is simply what happens in multi-ethnic democracies all over the world. Political parties coalesce on the basis of competing identities, not class. Peat is naive if he hasn't noticed this rather obvious pattern and attributes it to some elite trick of control.
     

  4. I took "electoral shock" to simply refer to the fact that the majority of the polls said Clinton would win...and then she didn't.

    And by the way, I think Peat's first paragraph is spot on, and is a fact completely overlooked by most people (with a few Youtube exceptions, cough cough Styxenhammer, cough cough). For this I'd say he is demonstrating some discernment on the issue, regardless of the rest.
     
  5. Peat is addressing the elites here with this sentence.

    To the "elites "it was a shock probably because most elites reside in major population centers as mentioned,they have followed philosophical ideals blindly for a long time,they via hubris have ignored the obvious issues and now must embrace different philosophical concepts, one of issues is acknowledging that their fellow humans are not over the moon with delight about being in the working class or middle for that matter.
    They now have access to information about a different lifestyles and are bombarded with said lifestyles,they are thinking why not me?
    People want more time to do what they want.


    That aside this is really a great interview,he is spot on imo, we have culture bubbles sponsored by advertisers and at times government agencies.

    "Identity politics" is one to throw around more,get it out there, you can see this at work in all these causes popping up,they are fuelled by desire for identity with the group,power,it doesn't matter what the cause is so long as the underlying drive is addressed which is identifying with power.
    The sad thing is the sincere causes get drowned out by the noisy populist causes with support from pop icons like Madonna,supporting this cause has more identity and power associated with it.
    Its all driven by mania and hubris.

    Meanwhile all the protesters are probably following some populist fad diet with copious amount of random supplementation with a prescribed med,health is the biggest issue we are facing,when this arrives said protesters will blame Trump for the stress he caused them,the same advertisers and governments agencies will promote this view,Madonna will make an appearance to help popularise it and the medical establishment march on........
    . :protest:protest:baaaaaaa
     
  6. This is probably the most truthful statement I have heard or read from Ray about politics. He usually isn’t nearly as clear and unequivocal. I think those who disagree with him may wish to reread it as your criticisms don’t line up with what he is really saying.

    Ray is not saying that he doesn't like the outcome. He says that Trump’s win will have a good effect on the country because he was actually talking about class. Historically this has always been the dividing line in politics but has been hidden by clever divide and rule techniques.

    He never mentioned the electoral college so I am not sure why that is even an issue. The electoral college is not designed to protect us from the tyranny of large population centers but rather to ensure that every State has a proportional vote in the election based on their size and not subject to the popular vote of other States. In this election it prevented California from deciding the vote for everyone based on its lopsided vote for Hillary.

    The election results were a shock to just about everyone as all the polls had Hilary way ahead. All the betting houses had him as a long shot.

    The CIA and other agencies do indeed manipulate the thoughts of the population here as well as all over the world. Thinking that Ray is crazy for saying that is just another CIA implanted thought. They invented the term “conspiracy theory” to discredit anyone looking at the truth.
     
  7. "To the "elites "it was a shock probably because most elites reside in major population centers as mentioned,they have followed philosophical ideals blindly for a long time, they via hubris have ignored the obvious issues and now must embrace different philosophical concepts"

    This brilliant article at link below addresses, I think, at length what above Drareg's sentence alludes to: that urban high IQ abstract thinkers are poor at common sense and believe idiotic things that defy common sense, often over prolonged periods of time. In political sphere, these people are often in policy or high executive positions imposing agendas that again defy common sense, even though to such people, their superior abstract reasoning abilities lead them to conclusions they insist are valid. They go with their reasoning above all, even if devoid of common sense:
    Clever sillies: Why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense
    Medical Hypotheses: Clever Sillies - Why the high IQ lack common sense

    Ideal is, of course, to work towards having great abstract reasoning abilities (including book reading) AND common sense. Seems fairly rare. Maybe there was more in the past. An example is from one of Taleb's books, where he points out the ancient Romans forced the builders of bridges to sleep under them for a a few nights after they were finished building them. Kind of forces the builders to be laser-focused on both abstract reasoning and common sense when building bridges.

    Here's a good quote from article:

    "In previous editorials I have written about the absent-minded and socially-inept ‘nutty professor’ stereotype in science, and the phenomenon of ‘psychological neoteny’ whereby intelligent modern people (including scientists) decline to grow-up and instead remain in a state of perpetual novelty-seeking adolescence. These can be seen as specific examples of the general phenomenon of ‘clever sillies’ whereby intelligent people with high levels of technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise. In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‘common sense’ – and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition...Drawing on the ideas of Kanazawa, my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense. Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing with the many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing societies; but is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for which humans have evolved ‘domain-specific’ adaptive behaviours. And since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain; this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively."
     
  8. Wow well spoken Peat. This man's general awareness is astonishing. If only voices like his were louder. Dogma is everywhere and it is up to people like him to shift through false realities and find the truth.
     
  9. There are some good points made in this thread. Admittedly, I'm a little trigger happy...worn out with dummies calling to overthrow the electoral college because they don't like the outcome from it. I do agree that the first paragraph was pretty good but by the time I got to the last one in the OP I was like screw it. Comment!

    However, I still think Peat was referring to the electoral college, otherwise he would have chosen the word "election" instead of electoral. Basically, it was the electoral college that pulled the rug out from under the "elites".

    Also freely admit I should have read the whole transcript before commenting. Drive by commenting is rarely productive. In the context of what I've read so far, he comes off a little better at least on the outcome of the election.

    As for the rest of the interview...sheesh. Not even going to go there. Have fun, y'all!
     
  10. I don't think that this election thing is normal in the first place, people think we are in a democracy but our system is more like plutocracy it has nothing to do wih original democracy, people like Peat could never become president even if he wanted to. I also think people wanting to access to power are the worst of all, they are basically the best to access to power but no to exert it.

    People seem to forget that Trump is a billionaire, I don't think that having this much money is a sign of good mental health, 5% of people have like 80% of the world's money while this distribution of money creates problems somewhere else in the world, they are like vampires.

    Trump was a surprise, but I don't think he will be a good president. He seems to be pretty thick and to be victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I may be wrong, time will tell. With all he behavior analysis algorithm they have now, they can understand what people really want, would probably be easy for them to create someone like Trump from A to Z while making people believe he is outside of the empire. Almost everything on TV is fake.
     
  11. That reformer website is a regressive left site. They are Brits/Canucks so they don't understand Americans. They don't understand how the US works. They don't understand why Trump won the rust belt and Florida. They don't understand that Americans are not as liberal and self hating and full of white guilt as them. Look at the other articles on that site. They are anti-Israel therefore pro-terrorist and there are some other silly articles and cartoons on that site. The guy interviewing Peat is a social justice warrior. He believes that "Mr. Trump openly supported authoritarian sentiments like ethnocentricity, military action." I don't think he knows what ethnocentrism is. He talks about military action as if it were always a bad thing. It's a dangerous world with a few bad actors in it who can destroy it by gaining access to nuclear bombs. Sometimes military action is needed.

    This interview was already posted a few months ago so I'm not sure why you're posting it again.

    .
     
  12. The US government is one of the worst villains in the history of the world. Somehow it's okay for the US to go and kill people in other countries? Apparently it's not a crime when it's the United States.

    "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Richard Nixon


    You are right and the US actually used nuclear weapons on a country! They dropped them on civilians! A quarter of a million people were killed or injured. To put that in perspective, 9,000 people were killed or injured during 9/11.

    Here is a list of countries the US has bombed:

    Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
    Guatemala 1954
    Indonesia 1958
    Cuba 1959-1961
    Guatemala 1960
    Congo 1964
    Laos 1964-73
    Vietnam 1961-73
    Cambodia 1969-70
    Guatemala 1967-69
    Grenada 1983
    Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
    Libya 1986
    El Salvador 1980s
    Nicaragua 1980s
    Iran 1987
    Panama 1989
    Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
    Kuwait 1991
    Somalia 1993
    Bosnia 1994, 1995
    Sudan 1998
    Afghanistan 1998
    Yugoslavia 1999
    Yemen 2002
    Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
    Iraq 2003-2015
    Afghanistan 2001-2015
    Pakistan 2007-2015
    Somalia 2007-8, 2011
    Yemen 2009, 2011
    Libya 2011, 2015
    Syria 2014-2016


    Not to mention all the meddling the US and CIA have done in other countries, putting various people in power who will serve US interests and arming them. Lots and lots of people have died from this.

    1973 Chilean coup d'état - Wikipedia
    1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

    "The CIA spent $8 million in the three years between 1970 and the military coup in September 1973, with over $3 million in 1972 alone. Covert American activity was present in almost every major election in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973, but its actual effect on electoral outcomes is not altogether clear."

    Funny, because you guys were freaking out about potential Russian involvement in your last election. I wonder how many elections the US has interfered with in other countries?

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has...-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
    "From 1965 to 1973 during the Vietnam War the U.S. dropped over two million tons of bombs on Laos – more than was dropped in WWII by both sides. Over a quarter of the population became refugees. This was later called a “secret war,” since it occurred at the same time as the Vietnam War, but got little press."

    "In December, 1989 U.S. troops invaded Panama, ostensibly to arrest Manuel Noriega, that nation’s president. This was an example of the U.S. view that it is the master of the world and can arrest anyone it wants to. For a number of years before that he had worked for the CIA, but fell out of favor partially because he was not an opponent of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. (1) It has been estimated that between 500 and 4,000 people died."

    According to a Vietnamese government statement in 1995 the number of deaths of civilians and military personnel during the Vietnam War was 5.1 million.

    "I want anything that can fly to go in there and crack the hell out of them" - Richard Nixon

    My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia


    War is rarely okay.

    Here is a good quote:

    "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams
     
  13. In short, don't come crying to us when crazy people start WW3. See if your libtard Trudeau will help you. See if your Canuck military will be able to do anything.

    .
     
  14. I love Rays simple class war politics, so refreshing from the mainstream.

    He sees Trump as hopefully a latter day Kerensky, a stepping stone to the real revolution , when the American working class will develop class consciousness ( as opposed to the American dream myth) unite and overthrow their capitalist ruling class oppressors, sweeping aside bourgeois irrelevancies such as identity politics, democracy, religion, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, globalisation. Economic nationalism (the latest fad, see Bannon) might also help in the short run (by opposing globalisation) to bring about the inevitable clash of good v evil (religious analogy). I know the God v Satan thing big on RPF. But to the likes of Ray religion is pure opium for the masses and distracts the working class from their inevitable battle with their rulers.

    Only problem, most revolutions are reactionary in nature and lead to a new ruling elite/class and Party dictatorship, which then exploit the working class again. See Russian and Chinese revolutions . Trotskys answer to this was permanent revolution!

    I know his sympathies are anarchist and total freedom from, parties, rulers and all forms of exploitation , but they were destroyed by the Communists in Ukraine and Spain, where their beliefs flowered for a short while. Anarchists tend to struggle with revolution, as they are not ruthless enough and so vehemently anti coercion/ authoritarian.

    During the Spanish civil war , anarchist units used to vote first on whether to obey their officers orders!

    People like Peat dont want to be President or anyone else be President. Presidents exert power and govern.

    See Kropotkin, (Rays a big fan) if youre interested.
     
  15. This has been said before but it always amazes me how we all project our political views upon Ray. I for one do not see him as a Marxist, Anarchist, or Trotskyite. You can recognize class as the key dividing line in politics without being a Marxist or revolutionist. IMO Marxism was funded by the aristocracy to destroy their newly empowered enemies, the Bourgeoisie. That is why Marx never wrote about the abuses of the nobility or the aristocracy even though they had enslaved mankind for thousands of years. The Bourgeoisie were the middle class merchants and industrialists who were responsible for freeing the great mass of men from the boot of their feudal overlords. Workers were not forced to leave the feudal estates for the cities but left voluntarily because those factory jobs though difficult paid a lot more than they made as a peasant. The high living standards we have today are the result of the bourgeoisie. They are not the enemy. In fact the majority of people reading this are bourgeoisie i.e. middle class.

    Communism and socialism is just a clever trick to reinstate the feudal era with the same blood lines back in charge. That's why every time its been implemented it always ends up in the same two class dictatorship like during the dark ages. Marx claimed that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will just magically fade away but this is just a cruel joke. No dictatorship in history has ever just faded away without violent overthrow.
     
  16.  
  17. @Simonsays @x-ray peat You guys are being too easy on Peat or you misread or misunderstood when he said this:

    "Presidents, including Clinton and Obama, have been saying that the US is a post-racist society, and that no remedial federal activity is needed. Now the Democrats have the partisan stimulus to start advocating concrete measures to improve the situation for blacks and other minorities, things that they opposed when they had opportunities."

    “Identity politics” has been a powerful way to distract people from their economic interests. As soon as M.L. King made the issue class, rather than race, he was killed. Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion."

    "Slavery and the annihilation of the native population were part of the context of their understanding of liberty."

    "The Occupy movement was manipulated away from making any demands that would have had the possibility to turn it into a party and gain broad support—much of the 99%, maybe half of the voters—could have seen it as their representative, leaving the other parties to divide the other half. The requirement for consensus allowed many special issues to be heard, but it kept the essential mass demands from being made. The FBI papers that were released under FOIA showed that the powers had identified the leaders at the beginning of the demonstrations, and had snipers ready to eliminate them if they became a threat, but the government organized the police to suppress the movement without having to kill the leaders, and the lack of specific political demands kept it from spreading. Organized action is essential, but I think it has to work like an organism, with learning and thinking integrated with action. Dissent has to be accepted within the movement, to permit the bulk of it to take action, while the dissenters keep working on their issues. Several groups with several demands wouldn’t keep the larger group from succeeding with the goals they have in common, such things as eliminating the absolute power of the ruling class. Julian Assange said “Parties should be fun. They should put the word party back into politics.” The political party should be something integral to life."

    I'm very disappointed to read that Peat wrote those things. He's out of touch with what's really going on with the left today. I wonder if he supports the vitriol and violence coming from the left right now. Sigh. Oh well. I like Peat for his views on natural health, not politics.

    .
     
  18.  
  19. How holistic of you
     
  20. Wow! Well this puts an end to any speculation, which was always weak, that Ray is a leftist or leftist sympathizer of any kind. What you have here is a complete validation of Donald Trump as the president of the United States and a statement to the rationality of the American people that elected him.

    In addition you have a complete repudiation of the vile left, lead by Hillary Clinton whom he accurately describes as being delivered by deep state CIA treachery and FBI thuggery at the expense of a brain washed and controlled public. He even puts the -globalists- in quotes indicating they are not what they seem to be, what a riot:p
    But the kicker is Peat thinks people might finally wake up so there is hope for the future!

    Ray Peat right again and the Donald too. Now say after me...it was all the Russians fault, the Russians did it...what a hoot!
     

  21. :rightagain
     
  22. Eating nutritions foods, avoiding chemicals and being into natural health doesn't mean that you have to be a libtard "hippie."

    There are many conservative people who like health food/natural living. A perfect example is this woman. Although from a quick glance she may look like a feminist SJW crazy, she is anything but, and she's very much into natural living.

    I love this woman:

     
  23. Not sure if serious.

    You must have missed this.

    .
     
  24. You can play your little worm games all you want , you lose this one big League.:inpain:

    Did I leave off the part where the big bad RIGHT is just pretend opposition to the leftist progressive scum currently flooding Europe full of jihadists and wrecking the minds and hearts of collage age kids worldwide? So sorry.
     
  25. West side, I'm going to bed but scanning quickly nothing peat said if those quoytes were his means much. Not sure where you are going.
     
  26. What exactly are we not understanding? I agree with him that both the left and right are manipulated to the benefit of the ruling classes. I am only surprised when he falls back into the fake left/right paradigm as in that quote where he seems to think that the Occupy Movement was anything more than controlled opposition. IMO this is what Ray thinks of the today's left.
    "Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion."
     
  27. couldn't it be said anyone adhering strongly to one side or the other is gonna eventually inherently hit a flaw or too? People and life isn't a one side or the other thing...its like saying your liver and extroverted output sense is all good or your kidneys and spleen and detoxifying side is all good, your right brain is good and left brain bad, or the other way around. Theres intelligence that incorporates a big picture in everything and life requires balance skill and higher incorporation so anyone that adheres to one side or the other is pretty much gonna be wrong eventually, and probably currently in some ways. Why not address each thing just intelligently on the spot with no prior knowledge or care of what is 'left' or 'right'...inflexible thought is not a good thing ever really, in fact it indicates the absence of thought. 'Left' people want to be seen as 'good people doing the right thing' and 'Right' people want to be looked at as tough and manly and things, but both clearly have many flaws for the most part, which is really just their human fundamental flaws...and it manifests through them identifying with one side and saying things, but really again the inability to independently, actually think and reason, and have a bigger more intelligent picture in mind, is sort of the problem. If you are unable to do that its better to be honest and say I'm not really sure on that issue id say maybe x or y but I don't really know totally x or y, instead of staunchly saying something simply because it fits the quota of the side you've identified with...that's really kind of dumb and the kind of thing that leads to harsh action or barriers, obstructions, to good real thinking people that would do the right thing to do the right thing
     
  28. Yeah well we'll see what Trump does in the next few months and years. I don't think Ray has any affinity with those working in politics, but 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.
     
  29. You should admit that your reading comprehension isn't that great and work on it
     
  30. pboy, thou has forsaken amazoniac.

    The left and the right are real as Ray alludes to here.

    Ray Peat: Their biggest achievement has probably been to obliterate coherent thinking about the meaning of “left” and “right” in politics. --------

    But he clearly states there has been no real expression of what they actually are since the the two began using state power to co-opt all reference to class in the USA and that this has been going on for a very long time.

    Ray Peat: “Identity politics” has been a powerful way to distract people from their economic interests. As soon as M.L. King made the issue class, rather than race, he was killed. Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion. ---------

    Ray is not saying much about Donald Trump other than he is an encouraging break from the current paradigm of left-right as represented by the clinton and bush families. He certainly is not saying Donald Trump is an authentic representative of the right (he is not) who beat the same on the left.

    Ray Peat: I’m hoping that the recent electoral shock will stimulate some new kinds of critical philosophical thinking. Understanding the culture as a control system, programmed to maintain the class system, is a first step toward discovering what we, as organisms in a half-destroyed ecosystem, really need, and what we can want and intend. -------

    It must be understood this wasn't a globalist spawn election of Jeb p*ssy Bush vs. Hillrat psycho clinton. Jeb (this is not who we are traitor p*ssy) was flushed pronto by the American people even though he had a 120 million warchest which got him 1 electoral vote, not because we were so dumb we couldn't see how great Jeb slow bought off by Saudi oil money a*s Bush was, he was flushed because we could see exactly what Ray was talking about in the interview namely that the right had been taken over by the same power that got the left and that the Donald was the most rational choice out of nothing but bad alternatives. THE LEFT MISSED THIS WHOLE gosh darned POINT!!!!!!!!!!! and still thinks Obama wasn't a bought off globalist plant and the left voted for Hillary Clinton and all she stands for. All the war to protect dollar and petro dollar hegemony, all the derivatives and financialization to steal money from the middle class, all the rape of healthcare system for profit and death control, and mostly for all the money printing. Yet Hillary was going to be a good leftist and play identity politics and promise to end the concept of gender and replace it with gender fluidity so that little boys could be screwed with in critical develop stages of life...what a gal. Before you call the right stupid look who actually voted for Hillthug clinton...there is your stupid.

    There are I think profound differences between left and right and those differences could form an optimal society in the sense of for the best in the best of all possible worlds but we are no where close to that because of the takeover. Paid trolls are here to help hide that point from you.
     
  31. My reading comprehension's just fine, thanks. So is my intution, which is telling me you should admit that you're a know-nothing little troll (7 posts and already saying things like this) lacking in basic social skills while living in mommy's basement. You need to work on *that*.

    It was a drive-by post (just like this one). Get over it.
     
  32. yea I mean they exist but to identify with one or the other always being right, or to not leave open the option that both are wrong and theres a better way excludes thinking...I know nearly everyone is colored by a potentially selfish interest or interest only b y who funds them and things and that isn't ideal if you are looking at actually doing the best thing...for me it isn't too hard, just have good intentions and do whats right against a grain even, but few can do this...it might be a metabolic energy or constipation issue! (amongst other things like just lack of will to leap into that so to speak). Personally its the most grounding thing but to many the right thing seems like a leap 'out of reality' but its actually the most tangible thing if you are gonna do the right thing many of the times. Make sure everyone has an adequate food supply that provides all the nutrients they need, a clean water source, sewage...eliminate oppression, then its like wheres the motivation to fight or start war? then from there its simply lets make everything better and as good as can naturally and at a reasonable natural pace. Yet theres those in power that potentially wouldn't want that cause then theyd have to either admit they have done wrong in the past or that they are in fact gonna have to be on a fair level playing field which might expose them or their weaknesses, or like they think theyd be left in the dark if their source of power was removed by the so called 'regular people'...but again if people aren't suffering on a fundamental level, deprived, or oppressed, I think their inclination to be fair goes way up
     
  33. It's incredible right?
    They project because they are part of the identity politics he speaks of,it's a vast array of different personas. Having Peat on board with your biases can add power to your group,string him in anyway you can because it's about your personal desire for power,need for attention,need for significance in a world that is not supporting creativity as much as it should,recently the tax on entrepreneurs in most western countries was released,the USA was one of the lowest at over 50% a year,the rest above this,how can they be more creative when their money is siphoned off at that rate? Add to this they can't get funds to open their own place as banks will only lend to those on the ,"cultural hook"(mortgage,married,kid,etc).
    It's disease of mind,inherent energy for creativity being suppressed and coming out/venting through extreme causes.

    It's part a lack of energy to project forward and energy to reject the introjection from the contemporary "global"environment,said environment are mainly using philosophical ideals and concepts from the past with nothing getting into the mainstream that is some hit original or more coherent with the "real" world/nature. (I'm not implying cliched self sufficient hipster communes).
    If they had the energy they would address the suppression and see what is really going on rather than keeping the illusion going of I'm something or going to be something significant, they keep this up because it's now a social norm to have to be on the way to success or face shame from fellow success seekers.

    If we discussed the class issue we would see those who are labelled as entrepreneur are generally coming form middle class backgrounds with parents who have a little saved to give the kids a start in most cases,these examples are constantly pushed into society onto working class and welfare class kids who will not get the financial start from their parents.
    Entrepreneur means,"risk taker" I believe, are you really a risk taker when it's your parents money, it seems more of a risk for a kid from the working class who has saved until he turned 40,over 20 years saving to open a small cafe with his own money,that's courage and real risk taking entrepreneurial spirit.
    There are exceptions to the above examples but in general I feel this is the case worldwide,here is the latest serial entrepreneur and paint some illusory tough background and leave out his parents have a combined income of 120,000 per year for over 45 years. Or he has the backing of a multi millionaire in some cases.
    Trump,zuckerburg and bill gates all had financially stable parents,trumps parents were millionaires I believe. Follow the trail of any wealthy individuals and it's rare they come from nothing, oligarchs in Russia were violent mafias who attained monopolies so probably not the example we are looking for,for now.....

    it's like that movie "into the wild" the kid is angry with his parents rejection and suppresses this by going to the extremes of making meaning in his life,if only those poisonous Berries he ate were shrooms or wheat with mould he could have lowered serotonin and headed on home and accepted the past,move on.
     
  34. As much as you are right about the electoral college Clinton and Trump was still a close call(edit-result) just like Brexit, the anti elite movement may be getting too carried away with victory just yet.
    The anti-elite may be in an information bubble full of hubris,same thing that happened the elites,the elites are now wide awake,their bubble has popped.
    When votes are almost 50/50 in democracies where voter turnout is poor when you consider the issues at stake,it tells us many are still oblivious to what is going on and can't be bothered,the potential voters are ripe to be exploited through the usual propaganda.
    If it's the welfare aspect of Society or those close to poverty that are not voting just think how easily you can get them on your side.

    With the rise of all these politically correct campaigns I'm starting to wonder are they another distraction to once again suppress the real issue which is social class, I would much rather associate with an issue that has several celebrities present because I'm living in the big city now and I'm on way to success so the last thing I want to do is hang out with the peasants from my working class roots that don't even drink kale juice and are not VEGAN.
    The truth howevere is my fad diet and supplement regime has lowered my brain glucose and I'm generally just responding to any movement that allows me to express manic energy,my employer at the next big thing startups exploits this manic energy and plays tony Robbins talks on repeat all day to convince me I'm going to be something even though I have no clue how I will get the money,oh wait I do,it's the secret,positive thinking will bring it to me via the law of attraction(lies).
     
  35. Ray Peat has a certain way of understanding reality, and every bit of it implies the others. There is a fil rouge that runs between the way he eats, the way he lives, and the way he thinks. In no way can you coherently reach a different mindset starting from just one or another of his ideas. Because of the implications. Now if you make of all that quote that he is a libtard hippie, then I question how well you understand him when he writes about food.
     
  36. I am interested in the history of fascism as it relates to the European avant garde. The founder of Italian futurism, FT Marinetti, was a close friend of Mussolini's. The evolution of the avant garde into what is today's pop culture is of particular interest to me. I am hoping someone else here shares this interest and can extrapolate. Ray mentions that many liberals are in fact in cahoots with fascist ideology. Id like to understand this connection more thoroughly and thought this forum would be a good place to start.
     
  37. I would say pop culture is a low energy underlying drive in humans,the titles and visuals may have changed slightly overtime but it's low energy,no attention span,can't maintain patterns in the Brain for very long.

    It's the equivalent of throwing a ball for a dog when the psychopaths in power sees the behaviour and energy level of the many,the dogs whole world becomes "the ball".
    In saying that the dog does not try to become the ball! The dog is more intelligent and wise than the human in some cases!
     
  38. Well said!
     
  39. I think you are reading a whole lot into the word "shock" in that RP quote. I'm not saying that I know what he DID intend. But I doubt it was as you unpacked it.
     
  40. Just to play devil's advocate, those competing identities COULD be class based. You yourself started by acknowledging that Trump played social class. I would add that this shouldn't be confused with socio-economic class AND it inevitably mixed in loads of race and ethnic identity as well. Nearly none of Trump's constituency identifies with him economically (or, more appropriately, he doesn't identify with them economically).
     
  41. Oh, well if Trudeau is a libtard, that makes you correct! Cool, just call people names et voila! you are superior. That. Is. So. Cool. Must remember for next argument. Why didn't I learn that in school?
     
  42. Maybe so. Again, it was a drive by post. So far I've been told I'm reading wrongly into it, my reading comprehension is faulty, and that I'm ignorant as to the actual meaning of the word "electoral". None of which, I can assure EVERYONE, is the case. However, if I could delete that post, I would. God forbid anyone take what Ray says out of context or not fully flesh out a thought in a couple of drive by posts during breaks in a busy day.
     
  43. [​IMG]

    Pop culture targets the primal parts of the human brain. As does advertising.
    Flashing colors.
    Sex.
    Violence.
    Shame.
    Wealth, etc.

    It's psychic pollution on par with the smog in china.

    A culture built on the refuse of hollywood and advertising agencies would result in the kind of people you see today. They can barely think.
     
  44. Why has no one in this thread mentioned the federal reserve banking system that rules the economy and thus the political system of this country?

    Why has trump not mentioned it?

    Trump is just another concierge for hotel Americana. Don't confuse him for the manager, let alone the owner.
     
  45. Trump spoke about outsourcing of jobs, bad trade deals, and unrestricted illegal immigration of low-skilled labor; all of these are class issues that have been ignored by the globablists who would rather distract us with wedge issues that will never be resolved. People didn't vote for Trump because he is white or that they are racist but rather because he was a demagogue that appealed to their class interests. 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.
     
  46. Head in sand. You talk about the economy not being so hot and not being able to repay your national debt and people will lose their minds! Instead like the last few administrations you guys will probably keep printing money to try and escape the inevitable. Unfortunately it might not be possible to hold back the next crash during Trumps presidency, and even though technically its not his fault but the last few presidents before him, he will probably get the blame.
     
  47. I said you were reading too much, not wrongly. I am saying the context just isn't there to interpret it the way you did (or not to). And you can't assure me you aren't reading too much into it any more than I can assure you that you are (which, obviously, I cannot). It appears you don't like to be disagreed with, so for that, I apologize. Peace.
     
  48. 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.
     
  49. Pretty sure Trump is all for smaller government. Therefore anti-government in this instance is pro-trump
     
  50. 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"?
     
  51. Well said. I wish there were simply a "like" button. Easier faster feedback.
     
  52. Talk about painting with a broad brush! Bush was all for smaller government. So was Obama. Virtually never happens. So far Trump has only expanded government, or attempted to. I'll grant you that its still early. But, again, absolutely no justification from your brush strokes that Peat's words were pro (or anti) Trump. They were anti-government. In fact, he isn't addressing the "size" of government, if that is even a coherent concept. RP would see a takedown of the entire system. He doesn't really address what he would replace it with. But I doubt it looks like an angry Cheeto or a Clinton dynasty.
     
  53. Ray Peat: "Trump’s focus on class issues helped to enfuriate his opposition, but didn’t stop people from voting. If class becomes a continuing part of political discussion, it might lead toward a restoration of democracy.

    I’m hoping that the recent electoral shock will stimulate some new kinds of critical philosophical thinking. Understanding the culture as a control system, programmed to maintain the class system, is a first step toward discovering what we, as organisms in a half-destroyed ecosystem, really need, and what we can want and intend."
     
  54. The last few presidents before him...LOL. There are much more fundamental issues with the economy than those discussed on the television. For example, the federal reserve and fractional reserve banking system have been fleecing honest citizens for much longer than the last few presidents. Both systems create money out of thin air to be loaned out and payed back AT INTEREST. lol. No risk all reward for them. National debt is a FRAUD and should be treated as such.
     
  55. Oh I understand and agree, but the monetary creation that has really put the US beyond the point of no return was done relatively recently. The problem is that joe public only knows what they are told and most people will mistakenly blame whatever current president is in power at the time of each crisis.
     
  56. Here is message from my government to Donald Trump:


    If you are an American, please send it to him (or tweed him), it's important!
     
  57. It's fair to take from this that Peat favors the centrality of class to the political discussion. Trump and Sanders both can take credit for re-introducing class to political discourse.
     
  58. True but in very different ways. Assuming that they are not both full of it, Bernie was mostly advocating a hand out while Trump was advocating a hand up.
     
  59. 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.
     
  60. 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.
     
  61. 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.
     
  62. 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.
     
  63. 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.
     
  64. 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.
     
  65. 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.
     
  66. 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).
     
  67. 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.
     
  68. 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.

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  69. No flippin way! Just read the words. Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?
     
  70. 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.
     
  71. Oh, well, there is no arguing with that logic o_O.
     
  72. 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.
     
  73. 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?
     
  74. 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?
     
  75. 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.
     
  76. 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.
     
  77. 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.
     
  78. 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?
     
  79. 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
     
  80. Last time I checked it was the West that funded the oil wells in the Middle East. Also through their illegal cartel we are paying a much higher price than we should for that "stolen" oil.

    Our phones and trinkets should be made in the US. The fact that they are not is what is hurting us
     
  81. Alright, I'll bite. Three guesses who signs the checks I get for trolling you. If you get it right, I'll go away and never bother you again. :muted: Uh oh, my boss is going to be pissed.

    As for China, Germany, and Japan, among many, most others, should we get into a tariff war with them, or develop agreements not to have barriers both ways?

    A quick Google search says Hillary and Bill are worth 30-50 million. That's a lot of money to most of us. But its pretty transparent where it comes from. I've seen her tax returns after all. Mostly speaking engagements. Which, for a former President and/or Sec of State, the fees are pretty good. I'd like that gig. Can you give me some examples of things, American things, they've sold off to become wealthy? Their tax returns don't reveal anything like that. Probably lied on their taxes.

    As for corporate America . . . can you elaborate? That seems pretty big.

    Which half of asia and central America? The list of countries with significant child labor for example doesn't seem to include central America at all. And only one from Asia:
    Worst Countries For Child Labor
    Hey, I've got an idea! Somebody ought to start an organization that goes around the world and audits labor to ensure fair and humane practices! They could also audit environmental practices! Of course, this would all require an international treaty . . .
     
  82. Before I respond, I just want to thank you for being articulate and well-informed. Its been a pleasure debating you. I mean it, no sarcasm.

    You are absolutely right that nothing ever called a "Free Trade Agreement" has actually ever really been a free trade agreement. Every country has complex issues and negotiates these agreements over the course of months. A little give here, a little take there. They ought to have automatic renegotiation clauses. We always have protected a lot of things, like corn and sugar cane and trucking. Not saying we shouldn't.

    The middle class is absolutely getting squeezed by a decline in real wages. However, that is not necessarily a decline in buying power or quality of life. The one area where economic measures saying QoL is declining is access to/quality of healthcare. My brother makes less than my father made. But he can buy a new computer that would have been unaffordable to my dad. Globalism is a double-edged sword in that scenario. The reason real wages can decline, while buying power and QoL increase is because economics is not a zero sum game. Third world economies, especially the BRIKs are growing much faster than our economy. But all are growing. The decline in real wages comes from a smaller and smaller few taking a greater and greater share of that growth, thus limiting the growth for the rest of us to a rate lower than the overall economic growth.

    But the real evil of globalism comes from the fact that the person who assembled that computer is making peanuts. This, I am certain, is what RP dislikes about globalism. And I agree. This is what I am calling "immature" globalism. I stand with RP on this as well. But I also look past it. Third world countries buying power and QoL have risen dramatically in recent decades. As I pointed out before, economies are not zero sum--it hasn't been at our expense, in fact, we too benefit when BRIK and other economies grow. Somebody IS eating our lunch. But that isn't "the Chinese" its the oligarchs. The key here is to accelerate the growth of the world economy, not to decelerate the growth of some and accelerate the growth of others. This latter approach results in less overall growth for all. Looking ahead to mature globalism, like I said before, you end up with a situation where there is rarely a reason to manufacture something far away. There is a long way from here to there, I'll admit.

    As for Soros and Rockefeller, I know the names, don't know much about what they advocate. I don't really care who I stand with though. I've always been one to seek out the different out of curiosity.
     
  83. I too enjoy your comments, whether you are a paid shill or not:)

    I have a different view on what has been sold to us as the benefits of free trade. I looked into this quite a bit before and found that the only way that free trade benefits both countries is when the assumptions of David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage are met. The most critical is that both trading countries have to be at full employment. If so country 1 will focus on only what it does comparatively better and allow country 2 to do what it does comparatively better. That way both countries benefit and there is no trade imbalance that builds up. Unfortunately the developing world is far from full employment. So instead of focusing only on what it does comparatively better and leave the rest to others, it is able to manufacture everything since there is no constraint on available labor. Though this type of trade makes the world cumulatively better off, the country with the higher wages or other competitive disadvantage ends up doing much worse than it would have done without the trade deal. This is what is happening to the US.

    I actually asked Paul Krugman this once at a talk he gave and after stumbling for a bit he said eventually both countries reach full employment. With China’s millions of unemployed peasants this could take 20-30 years and by then our country will be a shadow of its former self. In addition to this China and other developing countries have maintained unfair trade barriers and rules while we have opened our markets to them. This is not free trade but rather economic suicide.
     
  84. I think Peat is excercising caution in relation to specific opinions on Trump,Peat seems to comment on the current consciousness of the public,what in "general" they currently believe,the zeitgeist.

    Is it not a massive bait and switch the topic of trade or the topic of Mexicans? America may have issues in these departments but the real problem is the financial system,the level of fraud is astounding.
    I don't follow Trump or American politics religiously but it seems he is not talking about the financial system as much as the above ,this would have me worried,also when you look at his team.

    Global trade is back on when they peg currencies of the countries who wish to partake in global trade,the ability of China and Japan to devalue will always "trump" the USA, whatever is produced in USA will be mimicked if not bettered in China,no intellectual property rights will exist in a protectionist styled world.
    Keep in mind the Chinese are living their lives on low salaries for what they produce,they are socially adjusted in many areas for this salary, what will you guys do in the USA if your asked to work for similar pay in a factory producing iPhones say?
    I believe Trump is behind global trade with currencies pegged?
     
  85. Its an interesting perspective. I am not sure I entirely accept Ricardo's premise. However, the salience of full employment, or at least something approaching it, is clearly important. Ultimately, you need something approaching wage parity before globalism becomes hyperlocalism. So, full employment will come well before that.

    I did some quick googling and found an unemployment rate of 4% for China which is about equal to the US. I found underemployment rate at 12% for China and 14% for US.

    Are these reliable figures is my first question?

    Second assuming incongruities, and assuming that they drain the more fully employed economy, what would you (or Ricardo) do about that?
     
  86. Your pretty much spot on. Its why I am pretty clear that, although RP may like seeing things "shaken up" he clearly isn't saying that Trump will decentralize or humanize control systems.
     
  87. That is the problem for US workers. They are put into direct competition for jobs with developing countries and therefore see their wages drop dramatically. I am sure the US citizens would never have supported NAFTA or any other free trade deal if they knew the end result would be wage parity with China.

    Unemployment numbers from China, like our numbers, are highly suspect. They have been at 4% for thirty years despite ups and downs in their economy. Also they don't count the 100s of millions of peasants that are not looking for work now but are planned to be moved into the cities over the next few decades.

    I dont think I understand your last question? If you mean what should America do in light of this, I think as a first step we need to insist on equal access to Chinese markets or else close them out of our market. Other steps need to be thought through carefully as a trade war is not good for anyone but somehow you have to address the huge advantage China and the rest of developing countries have in terms of labor rates and huge numbers of underutilized workers. Otherwise free trade will continue to hollow out our working class.
     
  88. Not only are some Trump voters LGBTphobic, antisemitist, sexist, and racist, but they are also ageist. They said Clinton was too old to run for office even though she's healthier than Trump, who is taking several medications to treat his diseases. Hillary Clinton is tragically one of the best examples of the objectification of women. She was the best and most experienced presidential candidates, but she wasn't sexy enough to win the election.
    Hillary Clinton Isn’t Sick. You Are.
     
  89. i could have come in and within a few days or immediately in most areas done a better job than her, her intentions are no good so whatever experience or whatever is useless, she doesn't really have any clue about true humanitarianism or let alone doing the basic right thing for a small community or group, shes a squrrirely arrogant selfish shadowy person, sorry to say. I think shes sensitive and shows some bit of something, probably she has issues surrounding being violated boundary wise in youth, wasn't necessarily a terrible person, but now has a somewhat get mind at hwoever cost self protective mechanism...you can see something there like shes not all rotten but still does behind the scenes a lot of bad things apparently, or rather puts little to no time or effort into standing out to do the right basic thing, whenever asked about serious flaws or issues she does the Obama thing but in a different way, they get like slow and lulling and depressing like a serotonin we're all victims way of speaking and hope to like pacify the person out instead of showing that they basically are rich and have plenty of energy and awareness of whats really going on and have all these behind the scenes plans and deals and all that
     
  90. The trade problem America has is mainly anti-competitive behavior from other industrialized nations, not cheap labor competition. Most of the stuff about low wage labor competition from China and Mexico is a smoke screen. We can easily afford to lose the low margin industries and jobs that are at play. China primarily *assembles* products. The parts and machinery are generally made elsewhere and China doesn't capture very much of the profit margin. What is killing the US is the loss of the high skill, high margin jobs in industries making the parts and machines, and it's not due to wage gaps. It's due to dirty tricks. The real naughty list on this is countries like Germany, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. We lay out the red carpet in terms of trade for them but in turn they systematically exclude American products and use extra-legal measures to strip America of technology and markets. Japan is a huge problem here. For one specific example, over the years they've used all kinds of arm twisting to take over the high end carbon fiber manufacturing market which was previously American and mostly invented in America. They'd use political arm twisting to get Boeing, for example, to do technology and production transfers to Japan. So now a huge fraction of a Boeing 777 including the carbon fiber wings are made in Japan, because the Japanese government plays hard ball. They colluded with JAL and ANA to threaten to drop Boeing and twist their arms. This works OK for shareholders for a little while, but the end result is no jobs in America and then eventually the loss of entire high margin industries to Asia. Similar patterns played out with the relocation of silicon wafer and chip fab operations to Asia. The issue was never wages. It was organized predation of American industry.

    China also pulls a lot of crap to exclude American businesses from China, and steal American intellectual property. Read about how they recently railroaded Uber out of the country after Uber had spent a billion dollars. We don't do anything like that to their companies. (Not that I'm a fan of Uber, but this stuff happens all the time.)

    The problem we have is America mostly plays "fair" and maintains an open market, but nobody else does and we get screwed. We need to start twisting arms and playing tit-for-tat. Europe and Asia need to face consequences for screwing American companies, which they do constantly. This happens mostly because so many American politicians are too busy playing global empire to pay attention to things like businesses and trade.
     
  91. I think you are being a bit too reductionist. Its not either/or but both issues and many more. Yes China engages in extremely unfair trade practices and I have said the same, but even if that were solved American workers would still be forced to compete against low wage countries and will have there wages lowered or lose their jobs. You are also describing the China of 20 years ago. They do a lot of high value highly complex manufacturing and are continually moving up the value chain. Much of that technology of course is stolen or coerced from the west but the fact remains is that if things continue we will not have much of a manufacturing base left.
     
  92. Funny. Last I checked the US was funding terrorists and Dictators or creating them out of thin air to justify attacking middle eastern countries so they could steal their oil and drugs then give the contracts to rebuild the infastructures to their friends in halliburton and in non government NGOs.
     
  93. Why would china allow uber to go there and ruin their taxi business?

    Are you kidding when you say America plays fair and other countries play dirty? America is the dirtiest country in the world and yes I'm including south America and corrupt African nations.

    How do these countries play dirty? By providing cheap labor that your corporations take advantage off?

    The problem is that American corporations and oligarchs have no problem completely screwing over the little guy to increase their profit margin. In fact they're rewarded for it. American wealth hasn't gone down it's been redistributed upwards.
     
  94. That’s quite a truth bomb. But in reality those things you say were not done for the benefit of Americans or our corporations but rather for the goal of elite directed globalization. They know no border. If you doubt it explain why after all the money the US spent first destroying Iraq and then rebuilding it, why is it that China is dominating the oil industry there, Iran is running Iraq as a puppet, and Russia’s influence in the area has never been greater? Who benefited from the wars? Certainly not the US and certainly not Israel. Iran is on its way to a bomb and has sworn to destroy both countries.

    “We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

    China Reaps Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom
     
  95. All smoke and mirrors.

    If the wars weren't done for the benefits of corporations then why did corporations benefit from it?

    "explain why after all the money the US spent first destroying Iraq and then rebuilding it"

    "why is it that China is dominating the oil industry there"

    War in itself is a moneymaking venture. War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935

    The tax money the US spends on wars goes to corporations. The tax money the US spends on rebuilding goes to corporations. Sometimes the same ones. Whether China is benefiting from the Iraq war is irrelevant. What currency are they buying the petrol in? Dollars?

    Buying Petrol in dollars I wonder if there's a name for that.
     
  96. You originally claimed we went into Iraq to steal their oil. That is clearly not true. We went into Iraq to steal their oil for China. You just don't seem to understand why. The US, after Iraq, was the big loser in the war.

    If you only get your news from MSNBC or any other mainstream source you will never understand what is really going on.
    China’s Currency on Track to Challenge the U.S.’ Dollar in Oil Markets
     
  97. It is true. As are the other things I said. We did not go into Iraq to steal their oil for china.
     
  98. It's true because you say it's true. Hmm OK I guess you must be right then.
     
  99. He must be out of touch to some degree based on his age - but these quotes show me more about how not out of touch he is...
    For each of the quotes here is why:
    1) It's true they've been pushing some racial agenda. Slightly off though... They've been pushing that we should be different than the way we are - which isn't true. People are behaving within their cultures - and the establishment has been pushing an agenda that ignores that. A bit off, but he's right that the rhetoric has been the same through Obama and Clinton (and even Bush to a large degree).
    2) This is more in line of what's been happening with "race" -- it has been a useful detractor from the true issues, just like gender politics.
    3) I don't see how this isn't a factual statement on its own...
    4) We know the government uses its counter-intelligence to manipulate any possibly powerful movement by the people to discredit them. He even followed Assange here!

    I was happy to see his politics were more obviously in line with the truth than even his nutrition (because it isn't obvious that any nutritional advice is always true - since the truth there is so complex).