Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Thom Hartmann Program"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
The anti vaxxers are only refusing to vaccinate because they think being unvaccinated will not harm THEM or their family (or if they get infected it will be harmless for THEM, they very willfully ignore that they are also better spreaders, and were the ONLY spreaders that opted for being that before DELTA gripped the nation - being vaccinated helped against being a spreader with former variants).
It is not a principled (if mistaken) stance, as soon as they get severly ill, they "see the light". It is the Screw you, I got mine mentality. That is different than Jehova's Witnesses refusing to get blood transfusions for religious reasons, they KNOW they have higher risks. The anti vaxxers do not accept higher risks for themselves, they just assume there will not be any bad consequences for THEM.
A person that overeats does not gladly accept to cause harm to others, they even accept harm to themselves in many cases - deep down they know it can shorten their life span and reduce their quality of life, they just can't help themselves.
Overeating, working too much, too little - or too much - exercise. These are decisions / urges / addictions that can be revised. A smoker can quit next year, an obese person can try to eat differently and starting to exercise. They often have to fight their own demons - it is not that they do not care about others.
The normal "preventable" conditions that land in hospitals (but do not overwhelm them) normally do not include willful ignorance and stubbornly insisting on their freedom to do whatever they want - while reasonable people plead with them to think of all of society ! during a PANDEMIC.
They are not addicted - or maybe they are - to being contrarian no matter what. And to have their point of view confirmed by grifters in politics and online. Getting their bias confirmed (it aligns with "owning the libs" no matter what) is more important than anything else incl. caring for their family or avoiding excessive costs for the healthcare system (the party of family values and fiscal responsibility).
Addiction :
the U.S. governments did their part to promote the spread of drugs (while puporting to have a "war on drugs) and the addicted and reckless drivers (or careless drivers, or overweight people, or smokers, ....) DO NOT CAUSE THE NEED FOR TRIAGE.
2
-
2
-
In this case the CoVidiots were refusing to show solidarity during a pandemic and do not care for others (* the usual remark of people that have seen the light: I did not think I could get it, my late husband felt invincible, ... In other words: if only other people die, they do not care at all). So I would be for cooperative persons getting the resources first.
Never mind: the Covidiots may have gotten other people into the hospital, by infecting them, thus filling the beds (or fiercly opposing measure and leading protests), and those people may not be able to get the vaccine, may have a weak response (immuno compromised) or need other care.
It is like a person chosing to drink (they fancy they can handle that, they will drive carefully and are that special, ....).
They cause an accident with severely injured persons.
And then the drunk driver (young, healthy before the accident) would get scarce resources and the care for their victims is delayed (increasing the risk for bad outcomes for them).
Because the driver in younger and was in better shape than his or her victims.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Who USES the main part of fossil fuel despite being only about 12 - 15 % of the global population ? - Yes many humans are born - and they live on 1 or 5 USD per day - they are not eating meat nor do they use a lot of fossil fuel. Look at WHO eats the meat (it needs a lot of resources and also energy - the ratio of (grain) fodder to produced beef is 1 : 7 - so with a grain / soy or bean based diet one can sustain a much, much larger population w/o overusing farmland. The ratio is better for pork and chicken - but still factor 4 or 5).
There are a lot of human tragedies resulting from a high procreation rate in developing countries (that is typical for poor agricultural societies, it was the same in the U.S. or Europe btw - only 100 years ago). The exploding population is a political problem - potential breeding ground for mass migration, terrorism etc. - but despite the high numbers THEY have LITTLE impact on the fossil fuel side.
The Western nations that are shrinking in numbers (mostly) are the heavy users - per capita and also for the total volume !
For U.S. and European meat the forests in developing counties are cut down to make space for soybean production. those soy beans do not feed the people in the country. they are the CHEAP FODDER for the meat producers of the First World.
In the countries with high population growth there is pressure on wildlife (big predators going extinct, elephants, lions, gorillas, elephants, ...) yes. But while that is more than a national problem - it is not as dramatic as the global consequences of climate change triggered by global warming.
The orang utan is not in danger of going extinct because of the demands of locals - they are threatened by the insane EU program to have plant based fuel - that is one of their "save the climate" schemes, no doubt highly lucrative for a few special interests. In that case the appearance of doing something replaces doing something that would really help. They could get the oil from European grown countries - but palm oil is cheaper.
The oceans are not overfished for the needs of poor people (they hardly evers see animal protein), a chickenor an egg here and there if they are lucky.
And of course there is another use for palm oil - driven by Western multinationals and Western consumers (and increasingly China). For industrial production of food, and other articles (like shampoo, ...) They could use oil from plants grown in the West. But there they cannot simply take over all forests or dispossess small farmers. The production costs would be slightly higher. Not that it would matter - it would add maybe a few cents to the breakfast cereals, ice cream, detergents.... - but since only a few multinationals control most of the influental (food brands *) - even the cents add up to their profits. The prices for these products - often conveniance food and treats are not set by mere cost calculation anyway. Somehow they always end up with ,99 - so the sellers most likely would not even raise prices but rather decrease volume (might not be a bad idea) or just leave everything as is.
That would mean slightly decreased profits.
(* despite the many brand names they companies that own them are highly concentrated, all the medium sized companies who had a product that sold well, were bought up, taken over, ... look for the infographs on Who owns the food brands)
So the Asian rain forests are destroyed.
2
-
2
-
good point - our current system - capitalism - does not factor in the external costs, poisoning, pollution, health risks of workers (especially when they are in poor countries). - We need to take advantage of the inherent advantages of industrial mass production but not driven (solely) by the profit motive.
Else we end up with a consumer society and throw away products, and huge parts of the product price used for "marketing" while the sweatshop workers work almost like slaves, .... or that we are "unable" to deal with our carbon footprint, or methane footprint.
It is maddening because we have the technology (or could quickly develop it). Unfortunately the bold "we will get the technology no matter what it costs" only applied to the development of nuclear fission or the Race to the moon.
Civilian, life nurturing efforts - no money can be found.
Raising the U.S. military budget by more than Russia spends in total in one year: Yes please. (to 680 billion USD, Russia spends between 70 and 80 bn per year).
We could work 25 - 30 hours per week (with enough income to make a living), we would eat much less meat, have more durable devices, less but enough clothes (they did not go naked in the 70s and had a sense of fashion).
There would be less frivolous "innovation" - no I do not need a new car model or type of smarthphone every year.
We would have more of a very valuable commodity: time.
We would have good public services, incl. excellent public transportation.
And some basic decent publicly funded housing (with good infrastructure) would be available - and much cheaper
Check out Prof. Richard Werner Debt and Interest free money.
Those lower costs would compensate for higher energy prices and higher food costs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
if the money that is created lands and SITS on the accounts of rich people it does not create inflation (no money chasing goods) that is the situation we have right now. I think if the petrodollar crumbles the U.S. will get higher inflation - then because of imports costing more because of the weaker currency.
Due to outsourcing so much has to be imported now. If the USD would be valued on its economic merits Export/import trade imbalance. Debt - fed, state, local, consumers - it would have dropped long ago - which would have undermined all that outsourcing.
Imports become more expensive and it becomes an advantage to produce IN the country.
What is more: the pitchforks would be out - there is no glossing over inflation or gaslighting of the population.
If Sanders gets an infrastructure program through (with jobs that cannot be outsourced) and wages rise then there would be (some) inflation.
Not every kind of inflation is destructive. Sometimes it is the inevitable sign of a booming, healthy economy. It was higher during the time of the Economic Miracle.
Inflation is not the enemy of the workers if they CAN demand higher wages to compensate for that - and the right kind of giving the workers the fair shair of productivity wins should result in a modest desired inflation in the range of 2 % **
(depends on how much is imported, what is made in the country, outsourcing). It is also not the problem of entrepreneurs that are invested in machines to produce or people paying down a loan.
** see Heiner Flassbeck on the AGREED inflation goal in the EURo zone, how that agreement - that would make the Euro work - has been undermined by neoliberal politics since the introduction of the EURO, especially by Germany.
They keep the wages stagnant which allows them (in addition to a too weak currency, the EURO is not as strong as the Mark) to boost their exports to insane and unhealthy levels. That helps ONLY the OWNERS of the export industry and is on the back of every other participant of the German economy (incl. companies that serve the domestic demand).
Only France meets the goal of 2 % (they used to - not sure about 2018) because their strong unions make the companies pass on a good chunk of productivity wins.
But the people that have fortunes on accounts and in USD denominated bonds do no like inflation. At. All.
(that includes Saudi Arabia and China who hold a LOT of US bonds propping up the USD as world reserve currency - so far.
And of course all the rich people that hold fortunes in USD. Now they would try to switch to other currencies. Which those countries (Europe. Yen) certainly do not want, they would get even more problems to export to the U.S.because that would increase the value of their currencies.
All of that under the conditions that we let Big Finance and the speculators determine the value of a currency - it used to be differently. Directly after WW2 there were fixed exchange rates (which was an advantage, it made exports / imports plannable).
The governmetns / central banks COULD do something btw - like limiting transfers. If there are not companies bought in other countries there is no need to to send the billions around the globe.
So far media, politics, central banks see the world from the viewpoint of the rich. (and money, currency, banking, interest, stock exchange had always been tools of the rich).
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thom what happend to your criticial thinking skills ?????? do you mean to imply that Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Cheney, Bill Clinton, Alas Greenspan, ... were better ? One could argue that many of them are worse than Trump because they are not stupid clowns, they had the ability to recognize what they were doing, if they were willing to be honest with themselves.
The only halfway decent person I can think of is Jimmy Carter. As shows his conduct AFTER the presidency. The office must do something to people - Carter supported the dictator in Indonesia and did nothing against his genocide (on the contrary they got more weapons by the U.S. or with the help of the U.S. to unleash more atrocities). Under Carter also the infiltration of sort of secualr Afghanistan with foreign - often Saudi - Islamic terrorists started. Even Carter followed the common U.s. policy to make pacts with the devil, when it seemed ! to help the interests of the U.S. - more precisely the U.S. empire and the U.S. oligarchs.
Carter confirmed/signed a budget 6 months BEFORE the Soviet army invaded/moved to Afghanistan in Dec. 1979. Now the Soviets shared a border with Afghanistan and had some interest what was going on there (espcially if the U.S.was busy buidling an Islamic terror network in their backyard). What was the excuse for the U.S. meddling ?
Carter was very much influenced by Brzezinski - who came up with the idea to have peace in Israe - good idea.
But it seems he was very, very much against the Soviet Union and wanted to do everything to limit their influence. Brzezinski was an intelligent, knowledgeable, smart proponent for the idea of an U.S. all dominating empire (and let me add in such an empire you can expect Big Biz and Big Finance to call the shots but maybe Brzezinski despite his intelligence did not realize that - it is no advantage to be the regular citizen of an aspiring empire). In the context of insisting that the U.S. must be the only dominant nation on the planet Afghanistan, or Indonesia had some importance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I do not even think Trump - left to his own devices - would WANT war with Iran. The people around him want war (count Mike Pence in, big time). - Of course war can always be an attempt to get the ratings up. - Also consider the VILE MEDIA eager to profit of military conflict (ratings, their owners might have shares in the Military Industrial Complex).
The mainstream media were criticizing Trump right, left, and center this spring. Then he had the huge bomb dropped on Afghanistan and he let Syria's airbase bomb - and all of a sudden they were fawning about him and he was called "presidential".
It shows that the "journalists", "news presenters", and their rich owners do not have any relatives in the military and are not hindered by any ethical scruples either - the airstrike on Syria to "punish" the government for allegedly killing their own citizens cruelly and unnecessarily - killed around 40 MORE civilians (and some of them were children). I am sure they were glad to have died courtesey of the U.S. for a "good cause".
The bombing in Afghanistan was pointless (there are bombs that PIERCE deeply if you want to destroy tunnels - a system that was errected with U.S. financial help btw in the 80s).
In Syria there was NO proof that there even was a poison gas ATTACK, let alone "who did it" and "what DID happen". - People were actually killed and harmed (as much is sure).
There are well educated guesses (Seymour Hersh): the Russians did an airstrike - and they had informed the U.S./NATO forces about it in advance as usual - to avoid trouble among the superpowers and their military. (And the Russians were under the impression that the U.S./ NATO had informers where they intended to bomb and wanted to give them opportunity to get them out of harms way).
The bombing was targeted at a building that very likely was (also) a warehouse and there are assumptions that there were unintended chemical reactions triggered.
It is enterirely possible tha they stored Chlorine, and fertilizer there. And it is possible the jihadists even stored poison gas and explosives there.
All of that could have been set off unintentionally. The Russians KNEW that the warehouse was a location where the jihadists met all the time but not what was going on there - incl. they did not not know that it was a warehouse.
(although that is likely - the jihadists control the population by giving them the things they need, like fertilizer in this rural region, or the Chlorine which is necessary to "wash the death", to prepare them in the proper way for burial according to their traditions).
1
-
Ossoff: Another attempt of the Democratic Establishment to NOT CHANGE the substance. Ossoff a Corporate Democrat (with the usual rhetoric, incl. the values, opportunities, flexibility, bla bla bla). Affordable healthcare bla bla bla (but no talking about single payer, heaven forbid). No clear populist profile ! But he is sleek, at the coass he would be liked (I think for this conservative district he was looking a little bit too young) - And another try to fix an election with money.
Did not work for HRC. Did not work with Ossoff. Not all wealthy people are greedy a**holes, one COULD explain to them how single payer is even good for solid middle class people (net they still pay less, the system is so much more cost efficient, you deduct 45 % of the U.S. expenditures = German expenditures - and Germany is on the higher end of the average among wealthy European countries, and their system is good).
Explain to them how upper middle class people (even if THEY pay slightly more) can be PROUD of their contribution. How this would be a boost for the economy, help smaller businesses. Transfer money from the rich regions of the U.S. to poorer areas like Georgia (more nurses more disposable income, less stress on the low income people, they can spend more money too). How it would make life so much easier for doctors (they know they will be paid, no hassle if a bureaucrat will allow a certain treatment). And the planning (and the paments) are so much easier for hospitals.
How their contribution will propell the country forward. Single payer can be sold to wealthy individuals as well. It is only the Pharma and Healthcare industry (and their RICH shareholders) who do not like it. And the owners of MSM (who are likely to hold such profitable shares and on top despise any proof that solidarity can provide better solutions than the mythical "free market". And of course the politicians who get their share of the loot(campaign contributions, cushy jobs for ex politicians).
1
-
45 % of the vote in summer 1932, election had to be repeated. The Nazis did not have the majority and no other party wanted a coaltion (and the rest of them were too fractured and at odds with each other to form a coalition either, there were at least 6 parties on the ballot). In late fall 1932 they got 35 % - and were the first to be asked by president Hindenburg to try and form a government (as is usual for the largest party, but he had the authority he could have asked parties. He was a staunch conservative who did not like Hitler and the Nazis, he expected them to fail).
Instead they formed a minority government right away. the industrial leaders funded them covertly. They may have leaned on "leadership" of the conservative and the right (who would not officially go into a coalition with the Nazis) to support them.
so they voted with them every step on the way to dismantle democracy, separation of powers, due process.
The Nazis got a lot of protest vote, the economy was really bad after WW1 short recovery, boom ! Great Depression swapping over to Europe. In 1928 the Nazis had less than 5 %
45 % or then 35 % (with low turnout) did not care about the ugly rhetoric (about Jews for instance). They either liked the othering or were desperate enough about the economic misery to not care.
Nor did the right parties care - their leadership, the industrial leaders expected the Nazis to do the dirty work for them, go after the unions, the left parties.
Nazis had undermined the police, even the justice system. (recruiting members). The other narrative was about the violence of the Left - the Right instigated fights, and the police tended to ignore right wing violence and harrassment. The police went more after the left transgressions.
The Nazis after the power grab were free to pull off (covertly) a MMT related scheme, they partially financed the build-up of the military with it. The Industrial leaders cooperated, they would not have done that for a centrist or left government. And with parliament being fractured and not cooperating during the democratic times it might have not been possible to do it. - The economic recovery gave the Nazis legitimacy even with people who had not voted for them.
After WW1 the nation and especially the conservatives/the right (the dominating part of society) were in shock: in summer 1914 the world was O.K., in Nov. 1918 they had lost a wold war, the old order of society where eveyone knew their place had been turned upside down.
The right cultivated the narrative that the left was to blame for losing WW1- or more precisely, they could have lost less badly and gotten a better peace deal. The reparations were crushing.
That was delusional and unjust on top: the Left had demonstrated in the rush to war (1 month in summer 1914), but they went along in parliament (war funding) once war was declared. The conservatives in parliament and in society (calling the shots everywhere) took the country into war. Germany, well the emperor could have refused to support Austria-Hungary (they would not have started the war - falling dominos - w/o Germany on board).
The war was lost when the U.S. entered WW1 to help U.K.
Many things look similar, even deflection of blame.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Clare - you misrepresent what he said or at least what he means (I heard him talk about MMT so he "gets" it). - That said: he and Hartman are not completely right - the theoretical concept of fractional reserve is that the banks only need to have 10 % of the loan volume, the rest they "get" in form of an accounting exercise from the central bank (which also does not "have" the money).
Fractional reserve banking is not practiced - and likely never has been done in the way the theory describes it.
It is FIAT money not fractional reserve banking - and the Bank of England is very explicite about it (Money creation in a modern economy, the pdf is online, you can only read the summary - they spelled it out clearly).
- The banks lend out money they do not "have"
It is an accounting exercise, they do not so much "create money" - they create purchasing power and access to the resources of the economy. And commercial banks have to legal privilege to be the gatekeepers to that in individual cases, while the central bank sets the overal picture regarding availability of loans with the BASE interest rate.
Money creation in itself is not a bad thing.
Money creation is either done by commercial banks (Fiat money), or directly by the government / central bank. Think QE, or Bradbury pound, MMT, Debt and Interest Free Money.
The Nazis used such schemes to finance the buíld-up of the military (partially). And from an economic point it worked well. They turned the economy around (which gave them legitimacy with the population - of course the industrial leaders were SUPPORTIVE with the fascists when they would not have done that for a moderate or even left leaning government. Germany did get the weapons, planes, highways, railway modernization, .... and the jobs to end mass unemployment.
The banks and the rich do not like the unwashed masses to know about money creation in form of Fiat Money (it would destroy the myth how we "need" the rich investors, or how capital must be placated in certain scenarios with higher interest rate to stay in the country / currency).
and they definitely do not want the concept of direct money creation to be widely known (QE for the Banks was O.K. but it had to be explained in a way that the unwashed masses did not understand what is going on).
1
-
2:30 One of the most important principles in Marxism is "the workers own the means of production". NOT the STATE OWNS the means of production. (Lenin in an assessment of the "state of the revolution" a few years after the Bolshevic power grab called that STATE CAPITALISM. Which is accurate.
The state dictated what, where by whom would be produced. And who would get the products at what price and who would do the transport and selling. And wages and who would get a job. (So people who were not completely obedient to the system could be threatened with loss of job, very much like in capitalism).
State capitalism meant: Top dow hierarchy and micromanagement instead of grassroots.
The "Bolshevics" used the trick to equate state power = the power of the workers to decide about their economic fate. - Right, that's why the Bolshevics took over all the grassroots groups (the co-ops = Soviets) that had been formed in the short time of the fledgeling democracy.
Marx said that only organized mass action could counteract the ruthless opposition of the ruling class and that the workers would need to capture the institutions and the state government. Did he mean a dictatorship ? Or did he mean the working population could only exercise that souvereignity in a very indirect form (via the state institutions).
My take on this: Marx was very correct about the RUTHLESS, BRUTAL opposition that workers and the low income people in general could expect if they wanted to better their lot by getting a say in what happens in a country and if they wanted a fair share of the pie.
I have not read all of his works so I do not know how democratic or undemocratic his stance was (for instance ideas like "the good cause justifies the means" - like the workers using a violent revolution. His phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is quoted - but I do not know the context of that. If he thought that - he was wrong. Violent revolutions that topple undemocratic systems almost always breed a new dictatorship. if violence rules and the normal order breaks down, the most ruthless actors in the game have a natural advantage, they will sideline the moderate forces and use the power vaccum to their advantage. And often that ends in former revolutionary allies fighting each other - "The revolution eats its children".
Back to the status quo: The few on top had been using the military, the administration (if the culture had one, advanced civilizations have one) and religion for MILLENIALS to keep the masses down. They for sure would use EVERYTHING to screw the masses - legally and illegally.
We can see that btw in the way the Democratic Party now stoops to all sort of shenanigans to cheat the emerging progressives. The usual institutional power, influence and money they have isn't enough anymore - so they "step up" their game.
And the "elites" might stress the importance of rules and punish those who do not follow them. The minute THEY are challenged they will feel no need whatsoever to stick to the rules themselves.
The Nazis had some luck that they could capture the power in Germany (with spineless Conservative parties helping them). However, even though it appears like a totally avoidabe accident of history - on the other hand they had been capturing the INSTITUTIONS for 10 years (justice system, making friends with the upper middles class and the class of officiers who enjoyed a lot of respect in society. And especially the police !)
The Nazis - like Marx - KNEW how important it is to control the institutions.
You know the joke: heaven and hell discuss to have a soccer championship. The folks of heaven are pretty sure they will win anyway - they have the best players.
"So you think you will win, do you ? " says the devil. "Sure - you have the players - but we have the referees".
And a quote that is attributed to Lenin or Stalin: It does not matter who runs in an election or who votes - it matters who COUNTS THE VOTES - hackable US voting machines anyone ?
Power never concedes anything without a fight - it never has, it never will.
In 1800 or 1850 or 1900 the people at the top were FIERCLY opposed to the unwashed masses having any say or influence. (And at that time they still could feel comfortable to show that ideology). Some of that contept was still alive in the 1950 until the 1970s - and in the 1920 and 1930s it was very apparent also in the "low(er) income white collar class". I can speak for countries like Germany and Austria, Switzerland.
The people who were all for the traditional distinction between the classes had to be dragged into the new era. In post WW2 Germany the "elites" did well financially, but they did not have THAT much of a say (well at least they abstained from all too open attempts to shape public opinion) - after all they had been a major factor why the Nazis had a chance to come to power. Plus the thriving economy placated the hostility somewhat.
I am not so sure that Marx meant that the state should own the means of production. If so, he had illusions that the workers could keep control of the state administration, hierarchy, bureaucraZy. Of course there is nepotism and bureacracy exploding if you leave the organisation of a manufacturing plant to the "state". These decision have to be made at a much lower (not so indirect) level.
The more levels, the more indirect the decision making (and having to live with the results) the more you dillute common sense, accountability, transparency.
For me the "workers owning the means of production" would logically mean the people working in a plant (helping to CREATE THE VALUE) have some LEGAL STAKE (ownership - which is maybe tied to working there), that they have regular meetings, everyone has one vote, and at least the important decisions are voted on. And the body of workers hires (and if necessary fires) management.
In short GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION. Like in co-ops.
As for now: the "investors" and fund managers hire management and to THEM and only to THEM management is accountable.
In a Marxian run business the body of workers would replace the "investors".
So if you will: the workers become the capitalists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1