[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I dislike labels while discussing complex ideas. That is because it often conveys the wrong impression and dumbs down the idea to a stereotype.

US Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard repeated something I said last month about labels.

Jump to video position 18:40 for the exact mention. The CNN anchor tries hard to pin a label on Tulsi, but she wisely steps away from the trap.

https://youtu.be/aWn650HzmsQ?t=1120

[PGA]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...iness-47532522

There seem to be some merit in Raghuram Rajan's viewpoint. Around me I see such things happening, it's becoming increasingly difficult for under privileged to keep pace with the progress of privileged. IMHO the gap is widening.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by PGA

There seem to be some merit in Raghuram Rajan's viewpoint.

Yup, it is hard to ignore that now capitalism is fueling inequality in a massive scale.

Here is another view. I had never heard of this lady until today. She says Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos were influential in shaping the GST. I find that odd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwxOxQ1AOEg

[C300]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Yup, it is hard to ignore that now capitalism is fueling inequality in a massive scale.

Here is another view. I had never heard of this lady until today. She says Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos were influential in shaping the GST. I find that odd.

Thanks. She is well known environmentalist and works to preserve local seeds and biodiversity. Her views on Monsanto and Hydrocarbon industry are very strong. The comments on GST are odd tbough.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by C300

Thanks. She is well known environmentalist and works to preserve local seeds and biodiversity. Her views on Monsanto and Hydrocarbon industry are very strong. The comments on GST are odd tbough.

And she has been repeatedly proven wrong, and severely criticised for her unscientific approach, and demonizing biotechnology.

Quote from a former founder of Anti-GMO activist turned GMO promoter, Mark Lynas.

It is unfortunately much the same in much of Africa and Asia. India has rejected Bt brinjal, even though it would reduce insecticide applications in the field, and residues on the fruit. The government in India is increasingly in thrall to backward-looking ideologues like Vandana Shiva, who idealise pre-industrial village agriculture despite the historical fact that it was an age of repeated famines and structural insecurity.

[Samurai]

Unfortunately, I don't have any background to understand these GMO and anti-GMO arguments. So I really don't know who is right.

[C300]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

And she has been repeatedly proven wrong, and severely criticised for her unscientific approach, and demonizing biotechnology.

Not supporting or rejecting her arguments. Just stating her background.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Quote from a former founder of Anti-GMO activist turned GMO promoter, Mark Lynas.

The government in India is increasingly in thrall to backward-looking ideologues like Vandana Shiva, who idealise pre-industrial village agriculture despite the historical fact that it was an age of repeated famines and structural insecurity.

Should we be worried about structural insecurity of human beings while the natural ecosystem and biodiversity is on the brink of collapse?

[DigitalOne]

I was reading this article which had a link to a missing article on Financial Times, London.

And the FT had these gems as their "Page Not Found" template















@Mods, do not move this to the Joke thread. This thread does need a bit of humour

[Samurai]

I have become a big fan of this guy... he makes very hard hitting points without pulling any punches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nat-_b4PjNc

[rrsteer]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I have become a big fan of this guy... he makes very hard hitting points without pulling any punches.

Thanks for sharing! Really good thoughts from the interviewee. I think I partly now know why the 'right' side of the political spectrum are gaining/ have gained ground everywhere from our own country to US. The last part where he talked about the capitulation of the Democratic party in US, is just so very true.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

Thanks for sharing! Really good thoughts from the interviewee. I think I partly now know why the 'right' side of the political spectrum are gaining/ have gained ground everywhere from our own country to US. The last part where he talked about the capitulation of the Democratic party in US, is just so very true.

I listened to him a bit, and feel that he has nothing to offer other than plain hate for the rich. The left always recruited from the hate-the-rich minds. This guy seems to suggest that the rich has the duty to keep paying the poor, and if the poor does not become rich it is the rich to blame. I can understand that the poor needs help, but what I don't get is how you gain more rights when you are poor. No, being poor does not give you any right to take anything away from the rich. Not even with a third party (government) involved.

Recently I had been listening to some Alt Right leaders like Richard Spencer and it is clear how they rose in prominence during the last few years. Before you blame Trump you should understand that Trump is only riding on what was a byproduct of the extreme left politics played by the Democrats. As with the left anywhere in the world, they played identity politics to garner votes. Just create virtual groups (poor, black, women, LGBT etc), tell them they are oppressed, show them an oppressor (rich, white, men, straight etc) and offer them free stuff as compensation. Like, hey you are oppressed, so how about some free money. Problem is, every election year they have to better the offer or find new target groups.

There is a growing resentment against this identity politics for quite some time now. Trump was able to successfully use it to his advantage.

Just do a thought experiment. What if we replace all social schemes and go with the Yang Gang suggestion - UBI. Give a thousand dollars to everybody every month. No, I like the idea. At least better than any other social intervention scheme ever invented. I know that there is still a question of who will pay for it. But lets park that issue for a moment. So you give a 1000 dollars to everybody irrespective of whether he is rich, poor, black, white brown, yellow, straight, gay, queer etc. Guess what, next election year what will you promise? Promise to make it 2000 dollars? NO. That will not work. For such "free" schemes to work, you should promise something that is not available to that other group. That is where UBI is going to fail. After a few years with UBI the left will go back to promising perks to target identity groups.

And that is how socialism works. Pit the poor against the rich, tell them whatever money he made was made because of you, he is privileged while you were oppressed, so give me your vote so that I can take money from him and give it to you. Simple, ain't it? No need to create any wealth. Steal from A and give to B and ask for B's vote. Most of the time As are outnumbered by Bs.

Last year when I bought a car, I had a passport copy to be attested by a gazetted officer for registration of the car. There are several govt offices on my way to work. That day I had to visit 9 different offices before I found somebody who attested it. The time was about 11:00-12:00AM and in all those 8 offices (except the last one) I was greeted with empty chairs with just a sweeper or a security guy asking me to come later as they don't know when sir/madam would arrive. Agriculture development board, Milk development board, <some caste> development corp, etc etc. All white elephants leeching money from the taxes you and me paid. That, guys, is the socialism that is prevalent here. The proponents of socialism make it sound like it is some charity scheme that is designed to help some not-so-fortunate individuals who cannot otherwise take care of themselves. NO. No real poor people who needs help gets anything. Look at the adivasis, the homeless, the undocumented who lives on the streets. They get nothing. All the tax we pay are being eaten up by the middle class govt employees whom are paid 10 times more than an average hardworking laborer or a small business owner.

Let me put out some statistics. My state collected Rs 42176 crores in revenue (tax etc) during 2016-17. And spent Rs 43271 crores in just salaries and pension to govt employees. Now where is the money left for social schemes? Where are the money for the roads, bridges, etc? You borrow, and incur debt. This is the kind of socialism that really exists here.

There are millions out there who work hard - on the road, on the fields, in factories, in mines etc - to earn their living. There are daily wage labourers, small shop owners, roadside hawkers, door to door salesmen who work honestly to make a living. And then there are socialists who "fight" for their right to receive free stuff from the government. Free stuff got by taxing people who worked hard to buy their food. Socialism is a disservice to people who actually work for a living.

PS: An elder brother recently gave his younger brother some 550 crores to pay his debt off. The younger brother was a less fortunate guy who is incapable of running businesses. But it is nice that the elder brother thought it was better to keep it within the family. In the socialistic scheme of things, he should have convened a meeting of all business owners and asked them to pool money to bail his brother out because he is one among them. In the post-modernist-left era the younger brother would have claimed that he has the right to receive money from all the other business owners to pay off the debt.

[JMaruru]

Originally Posted by blacksport

There are millions out there who work hard - on the road, on the fields, in factories, in mines etc - to earn their living. There are daily wage labourers, small shop owners, roadside hawkers, door to door salesmen who work honestly to make a living. And then there are socialists who "fight" for their right to receive free stuff from the government. Free stuff got by taxing people who worked hard to buy their food. Socialism is a disservice to people who actually work for a living.

So eloquently put!

I don't know where we are heading with all these freebies announced by state and central governments. Everyday in the newspapers you see some or the other schemes getting announced. How much of it reaches the deserved, only god knows. I shudder, thinking what might await us in coming years!

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by blacksport

I listened to him a bit, and feel that he has nothing to offer other than plain hate for the rich. The left always recruited from the hate-the-rich minds. This guy seems to suggest that the rich has the duty to keep paying the poor, and if the poor does not become rich it is the rich to blame. I can understand that the poor needs help, but what I don't get is how you gain more rights when you are poor. No, being poor does not give you any right to take anything away from the rich. Not even with a third party (government) involved.
.
.
.

What a nice way to "strawman" a narrative. Anand Giridharadas work is generally on the narrative that that the successful corporations rig the systems to pay almost no tax, which squeezes governments on spending, while the rich corporations act as some sort of change agents responsible for changing the world thru charity. What you have described is corruption in bureaucracy which can be resolved simply by better administration.

This is particularly rich.
"Just create virtual groups (poor, black, women, LGBT etc), tell them they are oppressed, show them an oppressor (rich, white, men, straight etc) and offer them free stuff as compensation."
Obviously history is not a strong point for the Right wing.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

What a nice way to "strawman" a narrative. Anand Giridharadas work is generally on the narrative that that the successful corporations rig the systems to pay almost no tax, which squeezes governments on spending, while the rich corporations act as some sort of change agents responsible for changing the world thru charity. What you have described is corruption in bureaucracy which can be resolved simply by better administration.

This is particularly rich.
"Just create virtual groups (poor, black, women, LGBT etc), tell them they are oppressed, show them an oppressor (rich, white, men, straight etc) and offer them free stuff as compensation."
Obviously history is not a strong point for the Right wing.

That's an automatic classification right? Anybody who opposes the left should be a right winger. Look at my avatar, I am a libertarian. I left the right out of my post because I wanted to get to the point where I bash socialism. I forgot that political correctness required me to balance the bashing. So here we go. The major identity politics the right plays are nationalism and religion. In the USA these are not really big issues (compared to race). Even race started becoming a talking point only lately. The Klu Klux Klan had died a natural death (barring a few fringe), and people only really cared about money (thanks to capitalism). Then came along the new Democrats with the white privilege narrative and now they have the Black Life matters and AntiFa movements. Now they provide fuel to the various White Supremacist movements like Alt Right.

Right or left, once you start forming groups based on identities, and rally them against the others, the rest go ahead and form their own group. What results in is strife. People like Giridhardas does exactly that. When you group the poor and blame every bit of their ills on the rich, you sow the seeds for strife.

I don't know whether corporations really project themselves as change agents, and I really doubt that because these corporations are not seeking for any public approval as they don't seek your vote. Unlike them politicians seek vote and hence try to act as agents of change. I do have heard this narrative of capitalism contributing more to the society by raising people from poverty. And how a corporation like Walmart being an agent of change by making products more affordable. And I do think they have a point. The left wouldn't have a problem with Walmart selling stuff for cheap, but they hate Walmart because Walmart became rich. That's why I say - socialism is based on the emotion called JEALOUSY and not COMPASSION.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by blacksport

That's an automatic classification right? Anybody who opposes the left should be a right winger. Look at my avatar, I am a libertarian. I left the right out of my post because I wanted to get to the point where I bash socialism. I forgot that political correctness required me to balance the bashing. So here we go. The major identity politics the right plays are nationalism and religion. In the USA these are not really big issues (compared to race). Even race started becoming a talking point only lately. The Klu Klux Klan had died a natural death (barring a few fringe), and people only really cared about money (thanks to capitalism). Then came along the new Democrats with the white privilege narrative and now they have the Black Life matters and AntiFa movements. Now they provide fuel to the various White Supremacist movements like Alt Right.

Right or left, once you start forming groups based on identities, and rally them against the others, the rest go ahead and form their own group. What results in is strife. People like Giridhardas does exactly that. When you group the poor and blame every bit of their ills on the rich, you sow the seeds for strife.

It may sound presumptuous on classifying, but it was a generic comment on the narrative, not intended personally. For instance, it has just been over half a century since the Civil rights movement ended in USA. That is history. The list you had in "virtual groups" has nothing virtual about it. Discrimination is a real thing, and a cursory reading of recent history itself will clear that. it may make a good whatsapp forward, but it does not have historic facts behind it. The Left did not create the segregated bunch just to advance any political agenda. They always existed, and exist even now to varied degrees.

When a person is the victim of a crime, nobody says lets move on with our life and not talk about it. When the marginalized sections point out and fight against discrimination, saying lets move on and ignore the whole thing in recent history and now, may be peace for some; but not all.

I don't know whether corporations really project themselves as change agents, and I really doubt that because these corporations are not seeking for any public approval as they don't seek your vote. Unlike them politicians seek vote and hence try to act as agents of change. I do have heard this narrative of capitalism contributing more to the society by raising people from poverty. And how a corporation like Walmart being an agent of change by making products more affordable. And I do think they have a point. The left wouldn't have a problem with Walmart selling stuff for cheap, but they hate Walmart because Walmart became rich. That's why I say - socialism is based on the emotion called JEALOUSY and not COMPASSION.

I have no clue how anyone would not know the charade of corporations in changing the world. All the billion dollar corps project themselves as change agents and some of the CEOs clearly are at that. But, I digress.
Corporations need public approval because they need people to buy stuff. Or they need people for their data.
Politicians are not "acting" as change agents. They "are" change agents. Of course most of them suck at what they should do. If you think the cheap price of a product denotes change of some sort, more power to you.

It is also incredible how tax avoidance is never part of the "anti socialism" arguments. A couple of pages before, we did have actual cited sources which said Amazon paid 0 in federal tax. What AG here is basically after is the kind of tax avoidance practised by giants like

Double Irish Arrangement
Dutch Sandwich
Single Malt

and there are tons of other types not so very publicised.
Get this. There is no Jealousy that's the baseline. One side usually says the corps provide jobs, so they must be allowed all the great profits with zero tax. The government anyways is useless.
The other side says, the corps have to pay their fair share of tax because by not doing that, they are undermining Govt revenue, which further reduces govt's efficiency, which further affects the people in detrimental ways which makes people dependent on the corps. Not that a discussion on Socialism is unwarranted in this thread, but that's not what that video and that author was about.