11 hours ago, MigL said:

Idolize is too strong a word, but I do admire R Oppenheimer, E Fermi, L Szilard, H Bethe, R Feynman, E Teller, E Lawrence, J Chadwick, G Seaborg, and others who took part in the development of the American atomic bombs that killed over 200000 people on two separate days in 1945.
A number of deaths that is 1000 times larger than the Sand Creek Massacre.

Can you see my point now, or do I need to elaborate ?

Thanks, I do, and I did, see your point. I'm no renaming zealot myself. The reason I mentioned Evans was that he wasn't just a personage who was later seen as a rotter. He succeeded in being seen as a rotter in his own time. Possibly why the indigenous community (and many Euro Coloradans) couldn't see why the peak was named Evans in the first place. It wasn't just Sand Creek, this guy had basically issued an executive order (or whatever governors call it) to tell everyone it was hunting season on natives, like they were game animals. At least Fermi et al tried to put the brakes on actual use of an A-bomb and their proliferation.

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

I guess technically the main fault is human nature, but since that’s not going to change any time soon you have to adapt the system to rein that in. One might say that the problem is the “unfettered” in unfettered capitalism. We need fetters.

SOCIALIST!!! 😎

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

SOCIALIST!!! 😎

Yeah, whatever. It’s the economic system described in the most detail by the Constitution, along with the power to regulate commerce.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Idolize is too strong a word, but I do admire R Oppenheimer, E Fermi, L Szilard, H Bethe, R Feynman, E Teller, E Lawrence, J Chadwick, G Seaborg, and others who took part in the development of the American atomic bombs that killed over 200000 people on two separate days in 1945.
A number of deaths that is 1000 times larger than the Sand Creek Massacre.

Can you see my point now, or do I need to elaborate ?

No, I see your point, but what I mean is that in case of monuments or similar structures, the context matters. Oppenheimer's legacy could "just" highlight the scientific, organizational and engineering achievements, just the doomsday scenario that nuclear weapons enabled, or even focus on how McCarthy's anti-communist hunt led to him losing his security clearance. IOW, to me it is not only about the person, but also the question what message we want to send when we create monuments in their honor. Folks are complicated, and I generally prefer to depict folks as human and enable a discussion regarding their legacies. I think the Manhattan project is even a bit disconnect to the outcome, I think a clearer depiction of the issue would be e.g. portraying Stalin as a bulwark against Nazis and conveniently downplay the whole other rest of his legacy. I.e., in my mind monuments to great men tend to gloss over the complexity of each person and I think I just have an automatic dislike to such shortcuts. I do recognize that as my own preference, and potentially, failing.

15 hours ago, MigL said:

The bigger problem is that our elected representatives are bought by wealthy individuals and corporations ( who are now 'individuals' in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
These permissive laws put another tool in the hand of the corporations who add to the toolbox that enables them to generate massive profits.
Neither the politicians or the wealthy ( corporations/individuals ) have any incentive to change the situation, as they both profit at taxpayer/workers expense.

And that creates a system in which the fetters on capitalism are diminished. A system where laws would prohibit that, would be a different system, wouldn't it?

15 hours ago, MigL said:

I guess we'll just have to join the EU.

Well, the EU also has similar issues, at a lower level. The fetters are, on average stronger than in North America. However, there was a big push around the 2010s for a more neoliberal/free trade in order to boost economies. And for a while it did. But even there the gap between rich and poor is increasing, in part adding to the rise of the far right (who then ironically accelerate the process). In my mind, what happens in the US is not the cause of the issue, but to a large degree just a symptom. The economic system does not come in with built-in safeguards and there has been a big push to reduce them further. It is quite possible that economies will indeed stagnate as many predict if there are too many regulations, but the current development does not appear to be sustainable, either. It should also be added that the economic issues in the US and elsewhere did not start with Trump. He (and COVID-19) just made such a mess that the fractures just became so much more visible. If those things hadn't happened, and the Supreme Court were a bit less weird, it would likely just take a bit longer to arrive where we are.

As i see it, even if we moved away from a Capitalist system, to a fully Socialist, or even Communist system, but kept the practice of wealthy individuals/companies being able to lobby, or otherwise influence Government, we would be in exactly the same situation. The wealth discrepancies are no less pronounced in states that rebelled and tried the Marx experiment.

V Putin is kept in power by Russian oligarchs, and whenever one of them gets 'out of line' it necessitates a push out of the nearest window.
Money always talks louder than reason; as Swansont says "Its human nature".

Thanks for the clarification. I think this is true, but addresses yet another domain, i.e. that of power inequality and associated self-enrichment. One issue with attempts at centrally planned economies is the intrinsic high inefficiency and overall reduced economic envelope compared to capitalist societies. As a consequence, everyone was by default poorer. And in that context, the Soviet Union is a great comparison to modern Russia, the former having a centrally planned economy, and the latter changing switching to capitalism. In both power differences are known and sometimes exerted by the same group of people.

Studies there do suggest that inequality has increased after the switch to capitalism (see e.g., Davies: Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective). But again, the caveat is that there is more inequality with an overall bigger pie. I.e., the overall baseline has improved but inequality almost immediately increased in tandem. The issue with all such system is whether there is some mechanism to stabilize a steady state (i.e. there is inequality but fixed at a given level) or whether it somehow continues forever, which of course inevitably means collapse (or an entirely new state).

I think a reason why this worry is coming up again is because the AI folks somehow simultaneously claim multiple contradicting things at once. I.e. AI and robots will make humans obsolete, yet somehow it won't cause mass-poverty and somehow the companies still will be endlessly profitable (though they are not even profitable now) and also no one will have to work, but no we won't need to have a completely new economic model (somehow). This opens up the space for new and old worries and almost demands a better grip on what all of that will mean for the next generation(s).

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Studies there do suggest that inequality has increased after the switch to capitalism (see e.g., Davies: Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective). But again, the caveat is that there is more inequality with an overall bigger pie. I.e., the overall baseline has improved but inequality almost immediately increased in tandem. The issue with all such system is whether there is some mechanism to stabilize a steady state (i.e. there is inequality but fixed at a given level) or whether it somehow continues forever, which of course inevitably means collapse (or an entirely new state).

We might look at what has happened to wealth inequality recently because it’s getting worse*, and identify what things might have caused that acceleration.

*in the US, at least https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/

It’s not going to be one thing; the policies, strategies, legal findings and legislation have had a cumulative effect

2 hours ago, swansont said:

We might look at what has happened to wealth inequality recently because it’s getting worse*, and identify what things might have caused that acceleration.

*in the US, at least https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/

It’s not going to be one thing; the policies, strategies, legal findings and legislation have had a cumulative effect

Absolutely. One of the elements I am interested in is the erosion of trust, associated with factors such as inequality.

There is also a large body of research looking into things like institutional trust that have been eroding across the political spectrum, in some areas these are politically segregated (e.g., there is a big divide relating to racial wealth inequality) but quite a bit overlap when it comes to criticism regarding the "elite" (though with different view on who are part of it).

One theme related to the erosion in trust is related to lack of perceived fairness. During times of shock (e.g. financial crisis 2008, COVID-19, now war on Iran and tariffs), the burden is not only shared unequally, at the top the wealth actually increases. This observation suggests for many that the system is "rigged" as the wealthy disproportionate benefit from good economic developments but are insulated from the negative ones. Conversely, the bottom do not see the benefit but are are at high risk at status loss.

These are, as you noted, the consequence of many factors making up the system. And while some have partially better solutions, the interconnection of modern economy largely means that pretty much no country is fully protected from these developments.

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

One theme related to the erosion in trust is related to lack of perceived fairness.

Indeed, sometimes we forget that we're still monkey's IIRC in a study of monkeys who were asked to do a task that would either get them a grape (best) or a piece of cucumber (nice), they were happy with both; but if they saw a monkey do the same task and got a grape, when they only got a cucumber, they'd throw it at the tester in a fit of rage.

We see it as fair, if we perceive that their work is worth a grape, but when our piece of cucumber isn't enough to enjoy, most of us start looking around for someone to throw our faeces at, rather than plan an appropriate strategy to even thing's up.

The angrier we get with the Trump the further down the rabbit hole we follow his version of sanity.

I wonder how many of us truely believe that, if the midterms go against him and he becomes a lame duck, he'll stop waddling on...

14 hours ago, swansont said:

We might look at what has happened to wealth inequality recently...

It’s not going to be one thing; the policies, strategies, legal findings and legislation have had a cumulative effect

There seems to be a distorting funhouse mirror in our culture in which many people no longer see their lives in its true proportions. And this dysmorphia flexes through all these causal chains you and others mention - corporations, legislatures, courts, academia, media, memes, etc. People come to accept that only money is heard, that they are essentially slackers, that votes don't matter, that you're a fool if you don't cheat...all beliefs that wither action and so self-fulfill. So yes, it is useful to look at say, policy making and see if there are lines of control that are more oligarchy than democracy. Or look at who owns and pulls the strings of media. If the trail of bread crumbs lead back to big money, then we need to ask why they don't want a prosperous middle class and less wealth inequality - they are capitalists, so don't they need a prosperous demographic to mass market to? What sort of short-term temptations (and/or blind spots) in the system induce a billionaire to grab another billion instead of sending that next billion on to promote a prosperous and well-trained and well-housed labor force?

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

There is also a large body of research looking into things like institutional trust that have been eroding across the political spectrum, in some areas these are politically segregated (e.g., there is a big divide relating to racial wealth inequality) but quite a bit overlap when it comes to criticism regarding the "elite" (though with different view on who are part of it).

I sometimes wonder if there's a divide-and-conquer strategy in there. Less trust everywhere makes people withdraw into small bickering camps. Fear, paranoia, xenophobia, elite-bashing...these make people easier to manipulate. That I would suggest a "they" who are doing this manipulation shows how easy it is to slide into the paranoia. But "you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you." So we need to keep people looking at who controls their web feeds and who owns these humongous media giants and vast tracts of the internet.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

things might have caused that acceleration.
*in the US, at least https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/

Kind of shocking that in some ways ( wealth distribution ) things were better for black people in the 60s.

It would be even more enlightening if an inflation graph was superimposed on those charts.
I would be willing to bet that they have also fallen behind in 'purchasing power' even more than other groups.
And that would affect whether they can afford food to stay healthy, purchase housing, or retirement savings.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

we need to ask why they don't want a prosperous middle class and less wealth inequality - they are capitalists, so don't they need a prosperous demographic to mass market to? What sort of short-term temptations (and/or blind spots) in the system induce a billionaire to grab another billion instead of sending that next billion on to promote a prosperous and well-trained and well-housed labor force?

I think they aren’t as smart as many mythologize them to be, plus the issue being emotional rather than rational, and there’s a certain psychology of always wanting more.

Like the Doc Holliday quote from Tombstone, “A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it."

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I sometimes wonder if there's a divide-and-conquer strategy in there. Less trust everywhere makes people withdraw into small bickering camps. Fear, paranoia, xenophobia, elite-bashing...these make people easier to manipulate. That I would suggest a "they" who are doing this manipulation shows how easy it is to slide into the paranoia. But "you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you." So we need to keep people looking at who controls their web feeds and who owns these humongous media giants and vast tracts of the internet.

I don’t wonder; the messaging appeals to emotion by stoking fear, and largely fueled by lies.

Another quote, this time from The American President

“Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.”

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Kind of shocking that in some ways ( wealth distribution ) things were better for black people in the 60s.

I think it is because of our perception that folks treated black folks worse in the past, therefore we expect indicators also to be worse (relatively speaking). But the issue is that the system never fully corrected the issues that already put them on a different path and with all the other issues, that also affects white low-income folks on top, a widening gap is exactly what we expect to see. Conversely, it means that whatever measures where done were insufficient to close that gap and it is unclear whether it can be, as intergenerational wealth is a big driver and even if all negative factors were gone over night, they still start behind.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

I sometimes wonder if there's a divide-and-conquer strategy in there. Less trust everywhere makes people withdraw into small bickering camps. Fear, paranoia, xenophobia, elite-bashing...these make people easier to manipulate. That I would suggest a "they" who are doing this manipulation shows how easy it is to slide into the paranoia. But "you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you." So we need to keep people looking at who controls their web feeds and who owns these humongous media giants and vast tracts of the internet.

I don't think that the folks in power are smart or inclined enough to develop such long-term strategies. I think what happened is that in their quest to improve things like targeted marketing, they more or less stumbled over the impact of these mechanisms and only after that that, started to weaponize it for their gain. Silicon Valley seemed to have gone through multiple stages, starting from the "do no evil" part where a lot was driven by developing and finding use for tech, then increasingly drive it towards monetization which at some point culminated in power and control.

Pretty much like every comic book villain story.

IMO The problem in the US is very much capitalism, or rather, the mindset that says a person should try to gain as much as they can from every interaction and the sole measure of "gain" is money. As a result, one can never have "enough" and other people don't matter if they can't be of some monetary benefit.

The above, unfortunately, often gets conflated with entrepreneurship, which is simply trying to make a living by providing a good or service and I think ought to be encouraged in any system.

13 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

IMO The problem in the US is very much capitalism, or rather, the mindset that says a person should try to gain as much as they can from every interaction and the sole measure of "gain" is money. As a result, one can never have "enough" and other people don't matter if they can't be of some monetary benefit.

The above, unfortunately, often gets conflated with entrepreneurship, which is simply trying to make a living by providing a good or service and I think ought to be encouraged in any system.

+1

Quaker saying

Enough is Plenty

13 hours ago, npts2020 said:

IMO The problem in the US is very much capitalism, or rather, the mindset that says a person should try to gain as much as they can from every interaction and the sole measure of "gain" is money. As a result, one can never have "enough" and other people don't matter if they can't be of some monetary benefit.

The above, unfortunately, often gets conflated with entrepreneurship, which is simply trying to make a living by providing a good or service and I think ought to be encouraged in any system.

So far the only argument that Marx was wrong, is that it hasn't happened yet. I say it has never been so close to fruition bc the economy is now truely global and the number of people that can't earn a living wage is growing fast, especially in "the wealthy countries" where the slums are brushed under the carpet bc they're built on land that's jealously owned by someone who demands rent.

In feudal England, the land that can't be used profitably was given to the people, so they could at least scape a living, known as a common .

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So far the only argument that Marx was wrong, is that it hasn't happened yet. I say it has never been so close to fruition bc the economy is now truely global and the number of people that can't earn a living wage is growing fast, especially in "the wealthy countries" where the slums are brushed under the carpet bc they're built on land that's jealously owned by someone who demands rent.

In feudal England, the land that can't be used profitably was given to the people, so they could at least scape a living, known as a common .

The problem with this is overpopulation. Can you imagine if half of Brazil's population (pop. ~203,000,000) moved into the Amazon basin and clearcut forest to do subsistence farming? We have long since abandoned an agrarian based existence and need other solutions.

The only solution seems to be a mix of Capitalism ( for a viable economy ) and Socialism ( for protection of the vulnerable and 'structure' for society ).
The US used to have a pretty good mix until the 70s-80s.
It has gone downhill since, and fallen off the cliff last january.

Canada seems to have a decent mix ( why I live here ), but there are grumblings that some want to change the current Capitalism/Socialism mix.
I guess every country has people that want a 'change of mix', and some ( Russia, China, Iran, NKorea, the US and others ) have very valid reasons.

16 hours ago, npts2020 said:

The problem with this is overpopulation. Can you imagine if half of Brazil's population (pop. ~203,000,000) moved into the Amazon basin and clearcut forest to do subsistence farming? We have long since abandoned an agrarian based existence and need other solutions.

I'm not suggesting we return to a feudal system, I'm saying that even under such a repressive system, the lords understood the value of their slaves, for instance, many a folly was commissioned during times of economic depression, to keep his builders busy.

These days the lord's (new money, yuk), imagine that todays surfeit of workers will be the same tomorrow and so have little or no value, it reminds me of a joke about the relative value of an arsehole.

13 hours ago, MigL said:

The only solution seems to be a mix of Capitalism ( for a viable economy ) and Socialism ( for protection of the vulnerable and 'structure' for society ).
The US used to have a pretty good mix until the 70s-80s.
It has gone downhill since, and fallen off the cliff last january.

McCarthy buggered up any chance of a reasonble balance.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by dimreepr

Imagine the chaos of a society devoid of builders/plumbers/trained bin men/farmers et al... 🤑