The War in Israel may be at it's end.

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

reductive thinking about the Middle East is the best way to ensure that it remains a powder keg until our grandchildren are wiped out by nuclear holocaust or your savior comes back. And the fact there are policy-makers in our government that are actively counting on the latter eventuality is what really keeps me up at night.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 If you're seeing that take from some folks in washington, then I'm happy to join you in griping about it.

 

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trumps-nominee-for-pentagon-chief-suggested-new-temple-could-be-built-on-temple-mount/

I don't know anything about the Arutz Sheva conference.  I may or may not care what Hegseth thought back in 2018.   Mind you, I'm not unhappy with T's cabinet having believing Christians in it.  I'm happy to gripe with you on people in Washington "ensuring the ME remains a powder keg until nuclear holocaust or 2nd coming happens".    I don't see talking about rebuilding a temple on the temple mount as doing that. 

 

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

https://firstthings.com/mike-huckabees-biblical-vision-for-israel/

I'm not the hugest fan of Huckabee, but our Ambassador to Israel having Christian beliefs doesn't bug me.   I note the article says nothing about war or powder kegs.   If you're gonna get nervous that Christians are running our country, I guess that's ok.   I said I'll join you in griping if someone wants to ensure the ME remains a powder keg until nukes or 2nd coming.

 

Quote

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/12/politics/mike-huckabee-palestinian-comments-trump-israel-ambassador

Same comment.  We all get to have opinions about what will solve a problem that has been unsolvable my entire life.  Dude's almost 30 year old comment talks about solving the issue and getting rid of the powder keg, with no 2nd coming or nuclear war necessary.   Dislike his comment all you want, but from my perspective, the only people keeping the powder keg a powder keg, are those who refuse all solutions on the table.  

 

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Exporting notions of government by consent, inalienable human rights, free market capitalism, technological advancement: Good things.   Hooray.

Funny how we only do these things in regions that have something of value to us. 

Um, In 1788, most of the world was run by monarchies, warlords, and strongmen.  Today, just about everybody (including nations that have nothing of value to us) have some sort of governmental founding nod to human rights and elections.   That's the sort of exporting I'm talking about.   What they are in fact can be quite different, but even Saadam Hussein's Iraq had a constitution very similar to ours, at least pretending to have elected leaders that represent the people.  I remember shortly before we invaded, Iraq claimed they had just had a free and fair election and re-elected Hussein with like 98% of the vote.   

Free market capitalism has spread globally since its inception.  Western Europe, especially after WWII joined up.  Asian nations like Japan and South Korea jumped on board in the mid-20th century.  Latin American countries like Chile in the 1970s implemented free market reforms, influenced by economists like Milton Friedman, leading to significant economic changes.   After the USSR fell, former member nations like Poland and the Czech Republic joined up.    Africa is troubled, but even they have their  African Continental Free Trade Area, and greedy Americans hardly drool when thinking about most of those nations.

 

 

Quote

I would argue that free market capitalism is not, in fact, a universally good thing.

Nobody is arguing against you.  Nobody has ever argued against you.   The left seems eternally tone-deaf to the actual argument: All human systems suck, but free market capitalism sucks less than any other system ever tried.  

It would be really nice if the left could finally abandon this eternally-regrowing strawman, so we could have an honest discussion.  But the left keeps propagating the notion that "capitalists think their system is universally good" decade after decade, generation after generation.   At this point, it's like arguing with a flat-earther who isn't convinced that NASA isn't a plot.

 

 

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, Traveler said:

Not every Muslem hates us.  Not everybody in Iran is following the hard lines of Ayatollah.

I don't think anyone here believes that.  I doubt anyone is even remotely close to believing that.

I personally feel very sorry for the average Iranian citizen who really has no choice but to just hope they make it alive until the next day. 

The power structure in Iran is especially oppressive to their own citizens (who are all Muslims).  They are an oppressed people led by an ideologue who believes in salvation in the next life through killing all Americans and Israelis. 

[zil2]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

(who are all Muslims)

No, not by a long shot.  My Iranian-born friend enlightened me as to just how much religious (ETA: and ethnic) diversity there is - but those who aren't Muslim hide it and live in fear.

Edited Wednesday at 08:47 PM by zil2

[Phoenix_person]

37 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Nobody is arguing against you.  Nobody has ever argued against you.   The left seems eternally tone-deaf to the actual argument: All human systems suck, but free market capitalism sucks less than any other system ever tried.  

I hear you loud and clear. Most of us on the left are very clear on the fact that capitalism cannot be abolished except through tyranny, and 99% of us aren't willing to cross that line. We also believe that there are aspects of socialism that are fully compatible with a core capitalist system. As I said, many of our capitalist allies are far more socialist than we are. People like me are just trying to reform the system we have, not build a new one from scratch. We reject the notion that we "have to" do xyz because it's always been so. The "least bad" option still has room to improve without disrupting its fundamental infrastructure.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

No, not by a long shot.  My Iranian-born friend enlightened me as to just how much religious (ETA: and ethnic) diversity there is - but those who aren't Muslim hide it and live in fear.

Yes, a bit of an exaggeration. 

But "not by a long shot"??? 

Quote

All other non-Muslim religions combined constitute 1% of the country’s population

Even if the surveys are off by a large margin, it is still over 90% Muslim.  Most of the Iranians I know, emigrated because of religious persecution.  Only one of them was a Muslim (Shia).

[NeuroTypical]

Zil says pretty much everyone in Iran is Muslim and there's hardly any non-Muslims.

Carb says most of the people who left Iran that he knows, are pretty much all non-Muslims.

Gee.  I wonder if the two experiences might be related in some way.   

[zil2]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Zil says pretty much everyone in Iran is Muslim and there's hardly any non-Muslims.

Carb says most of the people who left Iran that he knows, are pretty much all non-Muslims.

Carb said both of those things. I pointed out that my friend who left said there are a lot of non-Muslims and a pretty large variety of other nationalities / ethnicities, but I concede, perhaps that was only the case when my friend was there, and the other non-Muslims mostly left, just like my friend.

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

We also believe that there are aspects of socialism that are fully compatible with a core capitalist system. As I said, many of our capitalist allies are far more socialist than we are. People like me are just trying to reform the system we have, not build a new one from scratch. 

Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani just won the New York primary seat away from Cuomo.   Dude's policies include initiatives like raising the minimum wage to $30 an hour, creating city-owned grocery stores, bringing back rent control, and paying for it all with increased taxes on wealthy residents and corporations.

Wanna bet eighty qwubbrillion dollars that if he wins and implements all that jargle, every single one of them will end up epic massive failures?

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani just won the New York primary seat away from Cuomo.   Dude's policies include initiatives like raising the minimum wage to $30 an hour, creating city-owned grocery stores, bringing back rent control, and paying for it all with increased taxes on wealthy residents and corporations.

Wanna bet eighty qwubbrillion dollars that if he wins and implements all that jargle, every single one of them will end up epic massive failures?

None of those initiatives are incompatible with capitalism. It's hard to say if they're good ideas or not because they've never been tried, but at least he's bringing something to the table other than corruption and scandal. Wealth disparity has steadily gotten worse over the last 40 years because, as it turns out, wealth doesn't trickle down. Tipping the scales in the other direction won't be the end of capitalism. A bunch of rich folks will get mad, but at the end of the day they'll still be rich. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 6/24/2025 at 5:57 AM, Carborendum said:

Reports now (take them for what they are worth) say:

• Iran's stockpile of uranium was enriched to 60%.  Not enough to do a full-blown bomb.  But obviously beyond "energy-producing" levels.
• Iran was apparently moving the uranium via trucks, prior to the bombing.
• The centrifuges were destroyed or made unuseable.  While some may be reparable, it is still a significant cost to Iran. However, we are aware that they had others at other facilities.  We don't know where.
• Saudi Arabia is clear that they consider Iran a bad actor.  Apparently, there is no love lost between them.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have had a far more hostile cold war between them than the US and the USSR did in the late 20th century (though earlier in the century it probably was hotter between the US and the USSR).

They absolutely hate each other.  Some of it is over religious disagreements.  It has benefited the US greatly (Saudi Arabia is one of the US's oldest allies, and lean greatly on the US for support, much of it due to wanting and needing weapons and defense in regards to this cold war).  

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Iran and Saudi Arabia have had a far more hostile cold war between them than the US and the USSR did in the late 20th century (though earlier in the century it probably was hotter between the US and the USSR).

They absolutely hate each other.  Some of it is over religious disagreements.  It has benefited the US greatly (Saudi Arabia is one of the US's oldest allies, and lean greatly on the US for support, much of it due to wanting and needing weapons and defense in regards to this cold war).  

Yup. 

[JohnsonJones]

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Off Topic:  I'd love to get a bigger image of your histomap quoted above.  I opened it in it's own tab but still couldn't get it big enough to read it.  Getting old, eyes can't read things that small.  It looks very interesting though and I'd love to have one that I could really see really easily and read over.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani just won the New York primary seat away from Cuomo.   Dude's policies include initiatives like raising the minimum wage to $30 an hour, creating city-owned grocery stores, bringing back rent control, and paying for it all with increased taxes on wealthy residents and corporations.

Wanna bet eighty qwubbrillion dollars that if he wins and implements all that jargle, every single one of them will end up epic massive failures?

I think he has an uphill battle.  He's going to have an independent (who has been a democrat) probably running against him and that is going to decrease a lot of his votes.

Cuomo at least probably won't run as well (if he did, I think that would almost guarantee Zhoran would not win).

I don't think his policies (the ones you listed) would fail if he actually was able to bring them about.  New York is a very expensive place to live already, and a minimum wage of $30 is probably equal to a minimum wage of $10 to $15 in the rest of the US.  

City-Owned Grocery stores probably won't be as successful, but I imagine there would be a few small grocery stores in food deserts that would lose money continually, but actually remain.  

Rent controls are probably heavily needed.  Let the rest of the nation catch up before the rents go crazy again.

There's too much valuable land, buildings, and the ports in NYC, the wealthy will always be there, or at least will remain until the proposals cost a LOT more than what the mayoral candidate is proposing thus far.  

I think he may run into problems with the Jewish population and the Sunni population with some of his current views and statements.  I have no idea if he will win this or not, I think it depends on whether a certain independent candidate (edit just in case no one knows who I am inferring about: Eric Adams) continues to run or not, and how successful that candidate is in drawing votes for himself and away from the Democrats.

Edited Thursday at 02:59 AM by JohnsonJones

[Carborendum]

15 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I hear you loud and clear. Most of us on the left are very clear on the fact that capitalism cannot be abolished except through tyranny, and 99% of us aren't willing to cross that line. We also believe that there are aspects of socialism that are fully compatible with a core capitalist system. As I said, many of our capitalist allies are far more socialist than we are. People like me are just trying to reform the system we have, not build a new one from scratch. We reject the notion that we "have to" do xyz because it's always been so. The "least bad" option still has room to improve without disrupting its fundamental infrastructure.

I'd point out that the camel already put his nose into the tent nearly 100 years ago and has been gaining steam ever since. 

So, the idea that you're "only asking for a little more" doesn't calm any fears of socialism for most of the people on this side of the aisle.

I would be interested (and I say this sincerely) what socialist programs has the US implemented that is running very well, low waste/fraud/abuse, and is actually performing the task it claims to perform?

Edited Thursday at 11:50 AM by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

11 hours ago, zil2 said:

Carb said both of those things. I pointed out that my friend who left said there are a lot of non-Muslims and a pretty large variety of other nationalities / ethnicities, but I concede, perhaps that was only the case when my friend was there, and the other non-Muslims mostly left, just like my friend.

I don't doubt there are a lot of non-Muslims there. 

But I'd point out that in a population of 90 million, a non-Muslim population of 1 Million people (which is a lot of people) is just over 1% of the population.  And chances are that they are gathered together to strengthen each other, so it seemed to them that there were more.

I'd also point out that you cited a "large variety of other nationalities/ethnicities".  I never addressed that.  I only pointed out the religious demographic, not nationalities/ethnicities.

The Middle Eastern people are of many ethnicities and come from many nations.  They don't all look like the stereotypical Arab.  And they intermarry just fine.  But they are very strict about religious enforcement.

As I posted earlier, even other Muslim nations don't like Iran and its allies.  They know those countries are ruled by extremists.  Even if the majority of the citizenry would be more moderate, the citizens don't really have a choice.

[Phoenix_person]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, the idea that you're "only asking for a little more" doesn't calm any fears of socialism for most of the people on this side of the aisle.

Good thing we live in a democracy, then. If you look at the current political makeup of our federal government, I'd say democracy is working out pretty well for your side of the fence.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I would be interested (and I say this sincerely) what socialist programs has the US implemented that is running very well, low waste/fraud/abuse, and is actually performing the task it claims to perform?

Fire departments

Public roads

Public schools

USPS

USDA

 

And I would counter that private enterprise is no more immune to corruption and waste than government programs. In fact, I'd argue that it's worse. Each year, over $40 BILLION goes to SNAP benefits for people working full-time jobs, including employees at companies like Amazon and Walmart. Amazon's starting pay is $15/hr, btw. It really highlights how little workers were asking for with that number.

Elon Musk is a beneficiary of $30B+ in government contracts. Our investment has gotten us spaceships that blow up, robotaxis that crash, Russia using Starlink in their war against Ukraine, and a bunch of dead animals at Neuralink. There's a reason why NASA was able to put multiple men on the moon in the 60s and 70s: direct government oversight. You know, the thing that the Trump administration (with Elon's help) spent its first few months dismantling. If none of that stinks to you, then respectfully, I don't care about your opinions regarding government waste. 

Edited Thursday at 03:41 PM by Phoenix_person

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Good thing we live in a democracy,

Don’t we live in a constitutional republic? 

[Phoenix_person]

34 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Don’t we live in a constitutional republic? 

Sure, and democracy is how we select the people who run our constitutional republic, per the Constitution. So we also live in a democracy.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I hear you loud and clear. Most of us on the left are very clear on the fact that capitalism cannot be abolished except through tyranny, and 99% of us aren't willing to cross that line. We also believe that there are aspects of socialism that are fully compatible with a core capitalist system. As I said, many of our capitalist allies are far more socialist than we are. People like me are just trying to reform the system we have, not build a new one from scratch. We reject the notion that we "have to" do xyz because it's always been so. The "least bad" option still has room to improve without disrupting its fundamental infrastructure.

What many do not understand is how authoritarian systems breed corruption.  True capitalism requires competition, but corruption always bleeds off the top of the economic resources destroying competitiveness.

As odd as it may seem, capitalism, though seemingly less efficient, always produces competition which makes everything in an economy incentivized.  Without incentive nothing will happen.  The only reason water flows downhill is because it is incentivized to do so by gravity. 

 The problem with capitalism is the unfit to contribute to the economic benefits in society.  This is the only argument of all other economic systems over capitalism.  What is left out and forgotten is the religious notion of charity and compassion.  Forced charity and compassion is not charity nor compassion and is driven more by elitism than any actual caring.  The hard-core reality is what the Book of Mormon always teaches – nothing prospers without the notion of a charitable G-d that rewards in eternity those that lovingly care for the indigent that cannot care for themselves.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What many do not understand is how authoritarian systems breed corruption.  True capitalism requires competition, but corruption always bleeds off the top of the economic resources destroying competitiveness.

As odd as it may seem, capitalism, though seemingly less efficient, always produces competition which makes everything in an economy incentivized.  Without incentive nothing will happen.  The only reason water flows downhill is because it is incentivized to do so by gravity. 

 The problem with capitalism is the unfit to contribute to the economic benefits in society.  This is the only argument of all other economic systems over capitalism.  What is left out and forgotten is the religious notion of charity and compassion.  Forced charity and compassion is not charity nor compassion and is driven more by elitism than any actual caring.  The hard-core reality is what the Book of Mormon always teaches – nothing prospers without the notion of a charitable G-d that rewards in eternity those that lovingly care for the indigent that cannot care for themselves.

 

The Traveler

 

The problem in the United States is not so much Capitalism, but Corporatism and Monopolism rather than Capitalism.  Unfortunately, in many instances, Capitalism evolves into Corporatism and Monopolism as the "Survival of the Fittest" edges away the smaller companies, companies merge and giant corporations that have far more power than any other business emerge.  

When we have companies that engulf such a large amount of sales such as Amazon and Walmart in comparison to other companies, such as Mom and Pop shops, the ability those corporations have to affect government and the economy far outscales anything that normal Capitalism can compete with.  

In order to have a real capitalistic society, social controls over how large corporations, companies, and co-ops can get must be written and legally enforced.

The problem we have had is that these laws have been slowly eroded over the past half century, where as at the same time a great reluctance to enforce anti-monopoly laws have crippled our government in regards to stopping such corporatism from taking place.

Part of this is that we see benefits of having large companies control large swathes of our economy in relation to others (an China took note and has attempted a very similar thing, which we can see it's impact on us today).  

An example...

Microsoft, though we took a soft punch at it over two decades ago, never really got broken as a Monopoly.  As a result, though other systems are utlized, on the desktop environment, over 75% of the computers worldwide (this does not include phones or tablets, just the desktop and PC environments which we use in such places as schools, offices, etc) still dominate the OS.  Thus, ideas such as forced updates, forced creation of accounts, and other things just to unlock our computers to use for the first time are the norm, because all those things are on Windows.  Linux, Unix, and other OS's, despite having better ways to do things in these areas are largely not utilized due to Windows dominance.  In essence, the competition is not ideal.  There is no real capitalism in this environment.

Some would say it is a good thing, as we have more universal usage and commonality.  It has allowed the United States to control the computer environment  (and now along with Apple, even greater control with the phones and tablets) of the world.  However, in regards to capitalism, Capitalism is dead in this arena, and has been for decades.  If it were alive and well, the US may not have the control it does over these environments throughout the world.

If we want Capitalism, than we have to enable capitalism to exist, rather than allowing companies to have basic monopolies in certain areas.  Many do not see the advantages of it in relation to where we stand today in regards to the Corporatism that has engulfed this nation.

Much of the problems people try to point out regarding Capitalism in the United States is not so much a result of Capitalism itself, but Corporatism and Monopolism in regards to their impact on our Government and Economy.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Good thing we live in a democracy, then. If you look at the current political makeup of our federal government, I'd say democracy is working out pretty well for your side of the fence.

Yes, it has... during this administration.  And one of the reasons why is that we're cutting away at socialism.

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Fire departments

Yes, that is a public good.  So, not necessarily socialism.  And there are some privately run fire departments that do a better job by focusing on prevention rather than remedy.

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Public roads

This is the quintessential example of a public good right behind military and police.  So, again, not really socialism.  And yet again, private versions do a better job.

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Public schools

Lol.  Not the best argument to get a conservative to consider socialism as a good thing.

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

USPS

Are you joking?  You're calling the post office a good example of a socialist program?

Once upon a time it was necessary because there was no practical alternative.  But now???  I believe we've had this discussion already.

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

USDA

Disagree.  If it were run as a watchdog (basically being the "police" of how food is made) maybe.  But it has gone FAARRR beyond that. 

Ever heard of the 2001 Roadless Rule?  They recently rescinded it because the greenies that imposed it didn't realize that we need roads in forests to provide services such as controlled burning, debris removal, manage wildlife, etc.  And it causes the ecosystem to die.

And then there is the recent chicken epidemic.  I think that was the USDA wasn't it?  I could be mistaken.  It may be another govt. department.

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

And I would counter that private enterprise is no more immune to corruption and waste than government programs.

I don't think any educated capitalist would argue that private enterprise is immune to corruption.  But the self-correcting mechanisms either keep it down to a minimum, OR cause the enterprise to fail. And when it fails, there are alternatives that come to pick up the pieces and offer new jobs to those ground-level workers who are out of work.

Government has no such mechanisms or alternatives.  While I'm sure you think DOGE was an evil group, it really did get rid of a LOT of corruption (incl. waste fraud and abuse) in government.

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

In fact, I'd argue that it's worse. Each year, over $40 BILLION goes to SNAP benefits for people working full-time jobs, including employees at companies like Amazon and Walmart. Amazon's starting pay is $15/hr, btw. It really highlights how little workers were asking for with that number.

It's not really clear what you're arguing here.  From what I gather, people who are gainfully employed are able to get money from the government that is usually reserved for people who can't work or can't find work.  But I get the feeling you're saying something else??  What I get out of the comment is that the government offers a very public and very easy way to fleece our tax dollars.

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Elon Musk is a beneficiary of $30B+ in government contracts. Our investment has gotten us spaceships that blow up, robotaxis that crash, Russia using Starlink in their war against Ukraine, and a bunch of dead animals at Neuralink. There's a reason why NASA was able to put multiple men on the moon in the 60s and 70s: direct government oversight. You know, the thing that the Trump administration (with Elon's help) spent its first few months dismantling. If none of that stinks to you, then respectfully, I don't care about your opinions regarding government waste. 

Again, I'm not sure that this is a winning argument for you.  You're talking about how government spends money.  By definition this exchange is a socialist endeavor.

Every venture in new developments/technologies requires trial and error.  That's in any venture into the NEW and ORIGINAL.  The fact that his end product is so much better that he can perform better at a lower cost should say that this is a GOOD thing.  But for some reason you think this is a failure of capitalism?

Edited Thursday at 05:55 PM by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Sure, and democracy is how we select the people who run our constitutional republic, per the Constitution. So we also live in a democracy.

Totally fair

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Sure, and democracy is how we select the people who run our constitutional republic, per the Constitution. So we also live in a democracy.

This is where both sides gets this wrong.

1. Democracy is an umbrella term which indicates that the masses have some say in how the government goes about passing and enforcing laws.  This includes both the election of representatives as well as direct consent to new laws (e.g.: propositions).

2. Another definition of democracy (when the context is specifically describing the difference between republics and democracies) is that a "direct" democracy is where the population votes on any measure that effects the entire population. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

So, I disagree with Republicans who make a big deal and say that "We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic."

I also disagree with Democrats who say that whenever an elected official does something we disagree with, we can take them out of office immediately "because we live in a democracy."  While there are some jurisdictions that allow for an immediate recall, there are conditions that restrict it somewhat.  And with the President, the Constitution already addresses that.

Edited Thursday at 06:13 PM by Carborendum

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

The problem in the United States is not so much Capitalism, but Corporatism and Monopolism rather than Capitalism.  Unfortunately, in many instances, Capitalism evolves into Corporatism and Monopolism as the "Survival of the Fittest" edges away the smaller companies, companies merge and giant corporations that have far more power than any other business emerge.  

When we have companies that engulf such a large amount of sales such as Amazon and Walmart in comparison to other companies, such as Mom and Pop shops, the ability those corporations have to affect government and the economy far outscales anything that normal Capitalism can compete with.  

In order to have a real capitalistic society, social controls over how large corporations, companies, and co-ops can get must be written and legally enforced.

The problem we have had is that these laws have been slowly eroded over the past half century, where as at the same time a great reluctance to enforce anti-monopoly laws have crippled our government in regards to stopping such corporatism from taking place.

Part of this is that we see benefits of having large companies control large swathes of our economy in relation to others (an China took note and has attempted a very similar thing, which we can see it's impact on us today).  

An example...

Microsoft, though we took a soft punch at it over two decades ago, never really got broken as a Monopoly.  As a result, though other systems are utlized, on the desktop environment, over 75% of the computers worldwide (this does not include phones or tablets, just the desktop and PC environments which we use in such places as schools, offices, etc) still dominate the OS.  Thus, ideas such as forced updates, forced creation of accounts, and other things just to unlock our computers to use for the first time are the norm, because all those things are on Windows.  Linux, Unix, and other OS's, despite having better ways to do things in these areas are largely not utilized due to Windows dominance.  In essence, the competition is not ideal.  There is no real capitalism in this environment.

Some would say it is a good thing, as we have more universal usage and commonality.  It has allowed the United States to control the computer environment  (and now along with Apple, even greater control with the phones and tablets) of the world.  However, in regards to capitalism, Capitalism is dead in this arena, and has been for decades.  If it were alive and well, the US may not have the control it does over these environments throughout the world.

If we want Capitalism, than we have to enable capitalism to exist, rather than allowing companies to have basic monopolies in certain areas.  Many do not see the advantages of it in relation to where we stand today in regards to the Corporatism that has engulfed this nation.

Much of the problems people try to point out regarding Capitalism in the United States is not so much a result of Capitalism itself, but Corporatism and Monopolism in regards to their impact on our Government and Economy.

One of the problems we have with our fallen mortality state is that nothing is exempt from corruption.  There are advantages to corporations, even large corporations.  I used to work in the corporate environment.  Because of their vast resources that were made available to me I was able to develop new technologies for patents.  Because of the sophistication of the technologies, there was no way possible I could have done it on my own with my own resources.

In my mind this is a most important reason that the USA has been at the forefront of technological development.  But there are unfortunate and unforeseen problems, especially in the effort to globalize manufacturing and economic development.  I will give a theoretical example.  To be more competitive a corporation decides to move manufacturing overseas to cut labor costs.  In the short run this works great but there are two levels of engineering that begin to suffer.  First is manufacturing engineering to improve the process which must include the supply chain and distribution with the manufacturing.   The second is the R&D to improve and redesign the products.  Many corporate heads confuse the first engineering process as a management function – in reality it is both.  Regardless, the management begins to realize that engineering needs to be local to manufacturing.  Eventually, it is learned that management needs local involvement as well.

All this is just a small part of what is affected.  There is aftermarket maintenance for products.  If the market is outside of the manufacturing landscape, then there are technical problems with maintenance.  And education of the next generation has an impact.  There is no reason to educate for jobs that are diminishing or gone.  As much as I hate to admit it – it sure appears to me that Trump is one of the few politicians in many decades that seems to have a clue what is going on with education, engineering, manufacturing, management and markets.

I finished my professional career as a consultant as an expert in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  I can say with some authority and experience that the biggest problem in the corporate environment is the elite educated management that is primarily driven by short-term, bottom-line capitol gains.

I will not comment on Microsoft because I believe that Mr. Gates belongs in prison.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Some points to my friends @NeuroTypical , @Phoenix_person, @LDSGator and others.  There are two primary necessities missing from our government to realistically qualify as a democratic republic.  First is a clear understanding of the agendas of individuals running for elected office.  AND second is a reliable method of securing and counting legal ballets.

I left the republican party because of these two factors that the republican party was deliberately throttling both of the two principles of a democratic republic mentioned above.   I worked desperately to become a democrat only to discover that the democratic party leaders (especially at the federal level) were exponentially worse.

 

The Traveler