America is in Decay -- How We Fix It

[helmuth_hubener]

IIRC, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we went through that, and it was found to be unsubstantiated pseudoscience.

"We" "went through" "that"? In what sense? 3P0, I am one of those people who believe that one must read a book to have a valid opinion about its contents. You will please excuse me for being old-fashioned that way.

Clever manipulative use of the passive tense, though. You really are a textual judo master. If only you weren't utterly uncurious and sure of yourself.

Somebody should be anointed king; then all the world's problems (those which are solvable) would indeed be solved.

Yes, no need to correct me, though: I meant "anoint a king for yourself." I know you yourself don't consider yourself worthy to be king.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

They were called military academies when I was a kid...

I was threatened with them regularly...

As was "Ted" Theodore Logan!

And at least for him, the military academy did work to rouse him to higher level of achievement than his previous hapless sloth -- worked through the mere threat of its existence, without even his frozen attendance at it in Alaska.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I am one of those people who believe that one must read a book to have a valid opinion about its contents.

I have an opinion about theses which attribute the rise and fall of civilization to biology (namely, that such theses are bunk).

All I really know about this book's thesis is that it falls into that general category of biological explanation of history. I don't know the exact logic of its argument because you've refused to lay it out. It's as if somebody suggested I read a new defense of the labor theory of value; unless he can summarize the argument and give me some reason to believe that it may not be the bunk which all other defenses of the LTV have been, I'm not going to be buying it (if it were free, I might give it a skim). So, till someone produces a good summary of the book's argument, or the author puts up a free ebook, I guess I'll have to remain in the dark.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

...helmuth, 'action' can be MUCH worse than inaction...even 'sloth'...for example, while some goddamned bankster$, etc., decide [killing] 'action' is to be promoted i firmly believe that inactive, slothful, lay-about, unemployed, etc., killers are a much superior outcome...

...in other words helmuth, we'd all be better off if the goddamned active killers, mercenaries, etc. assorted goddamned fools/cretins galore, stayed home, smoked dope and watched cartoons....

...a big positive is the roads wouldn't be NEAR as choked-up, dangerous, unhealthy, etc., if all the goddamned fools stayed home...

 

[The Rebel Poet]

...helmuth, 'action' can be MUCH worse than inaction...even 'sloth'...for example, while some goddamned bankster$, etc., decide [killing] 'action' is to be promoted i firmly believe that inactive, slothful, lay-about, unemployed, etc., killers are a much superior outcome...

...in other words helmuth, we'd all be better off if the goddamned active killers, mercenaries, etc. assorted goddamned fools/cretins galore, stayed home, smoked dope and watched cartoons....

...a big positive is the roads wouldn't be NEAR as choked-up, dangerous, unhealthy, etc., if all the goddamned fools stayed home...

Outta rep

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Your theses are bunk, Helmuth.

It's your fault I'm not better informed. You've refused to lay everything out for me, you lazy bum! It's all because of you that I am forced to have opinions about things I know nothing about. Finally, allow me to draw a parallel between your babblings and the stupidest theory I can think of: the labor theory of value.

3PO, I think you ought to take a step back and ask yourself what exactly it is that you were trying to accomplish by coming into my thread and trying to anger me by calling me and my ideas moronic. Ask yourself: what is my end-game there, by doing that?

Perhaps you should not antagonize one of the few people on this forum who still speaks civilly to you and hasn't completely written you off for your preference for world-domination.

Don't poke me.

I am having a thread here about practical, actionable ideas that people can do in their own lives and families -- Unilaterally! Today! Without having to convince 151 million other people first! -- that will have a very positive effect for liberty. And, as a big bonus, will lead to a very positive outcome for their kids' success. As well as their own success.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Rules alone won't do it. People need to be changed from the inside out. I would say that comes through faith in God as he has made himself known through history. That's the opposite of being a harsh parent sending children to segregated schools.

Whoops, I missed your follow-up post, euphemia. Thanks for explaining your thoughts further!

I am all for faith in God!

Could you explain why being a "harsh" (I would instead say "demanding") parent is somehow "the opposite" of having faith in God? Sociological study will show, quite clearly, that it is the most faithful and religious parents who are the most likely to discipline and control their children, to a much greater degree than secular parents. So the two seem to go together, in practical reality.

To explain myself a bit more: Children, especially infants and toddlers (which is when I think high control is most called-for and most effective) want to know how to act. They want to learn how to be a proper human. They need their parents to direct them. A hands-off approach, then, is abusive. You're leaving the child alone to wander in the wilderness, in the dark. He needs to puzzle everything out on his own. "No rules, just love!"

No, euphemia, to give the young child no rules is to hate him. And destroy him.

 

[presence]

to give the young child no rules is to hate him.

And destroy him.

I certainly agree with this notion.
Being father of a severe hemophiliac my outlook is a little more extreme than most on limits and boundaries.
Rule 1 in our house is to make it another 24 hours with no new injuries.
I do every thing to bring harsh awareness of bitter reality with words,
long before he can come to actual injury, "spontaneous" or otherwise;
both for his health and the astronomical cost of care.
As a parent of a kid in a tight box of boundaries,
I've learned its important though that every "cultural"rule is cast
with adequate lip service to its reason.
violation of "cultural" rules I try to handle like they did in ancient china;
forgiveness and no penalty, after a stern discussion on consequences potential or actual
the goal to impart the reason; make the cultural moral-anti-vice impression; not to punish transgression

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Here is another practical, actionable step you can take to save America from decay:

People will be starting to think about Christmas presents around this time. (Don't ask me why -- it's too early! But it is what it is.) The toy stores and toy sections of today's declined America consist almost entirely of:

Ready-made objects whose purpose is to be "played" with.

Instead, why not give a toy that sends the opposite meta-message:

• An erector set
• A model plane, car, boat, or architecture kit.


These were by far the most popular toys among boys in our civilization's high-point. Every boy coveted these prizes: the tools and materials that would let him work with his hands.

I am very pro working-with-one's-hands!

They have now gone by the wayside. The closest thing on shelves today is Legos. So where can one get model kits? Head to a local RC and hobby store.

And here are some modern erector set type incarnations:

http://blog.infentorides.com/ -- Larger size pieces, for building your own bikes, scooters, etc.

https://www.phunzone.com/Quadro Residential/FAQ.html -- Large-scale, Life-sized Tinkertoys.

http://www.vexrobotics.com/ -- Focus on building remote-control robots (but, like any good construction toy, can be used to build whatever)

And the biggest old brand is still around:

http://www.meccano.com/

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I certainly agree with this notion.

Thanks, presence!

Being father of a severe hemophiliac my outlook is a little more extreme than most on limits and boundaries.
Rule 1 in our house is to make it another 24 hours with no new injuries.

Yikes!

As a parent of a kid in a tight box of boundaries,
...
the goal to impart the reason; make the cultural moral-anti-vice impression; not to punish transgression

That is true; I agree.

Let me go further with some thoughts along the line of "tight boxes of boundaries." In Biohistory, the author recounts a particular Pacific island where the children were prodigiously good mechanics. Just amazing. It turns out that on this island the infants were controlled to an extremely high degree. The islanders walked around on bridges over the water everywhere, and so they rigorously and mercilessly trained the infants to grab on to the mother's neck and then hold on for dear life no matter what, for hours on end, as the mother walked about getting things done. They could not let them crawl around or have any degree of normal freedom of movement an infant would have, because they'd immediately fall and drown.

High control during infancy may be linked to mechanical aptitude. In any case, that's just one fascinating example. Tight boxes of boundaries have benefits in themselves. And it's not about controlling the child -- it's about teaching the child just how much -- the almost infinite degree to which -- he can control himself. Discipline and willpower are treasures beyond price.

 

[BV2]

Might also have something to do with people spending in their own short term interests, but against their long term intrests. Ie shopping at walmart cause its cheaper, allowing wal to eliminate local competition-and then raise prices. As it seens amazon has done. Heard Bezos was opening brick and mortar bookstores. Oh, goddamn, the irony.

 

[BV2]

That is part of it. The state's regulatory strangulation is a huge, gangantuan problem.

Unfortunately, there is an even bigger problem.

Even bigger than the state? Even bigger than gargantuan?

Yes.

We are in the midst of a civilizational collapse. This collapse is biologically-rooted. It has happened to every single previous civilization in history (except maybe the City of Enoch, but history is sketchy on that). If you'll allow me an understatement: It will be very hard to avert.

The solution?

Raise your kids harsher. Discipline them. Be more demanding. Have higher standards. Be rigorous. Punish. Doesn't sound libertarian, I know. Sorry. Many things in life and reality are counter-intuitive. This rigor and control very early in life (0-4) will actually make them much more creative and free-thinking as adults.

Don't over-feed them. Under-feed them. Don't give them toys.

Don't give yourself toys. Don't spend your money. Live on 10% of your income.

Do Extreme Vetting on the media you allow into your children. Only let in the best books, the best art, the best drama. And attend not only to quality, but select carefully with a mind to conveying very specific messages.

This may be obvious in light of the last point, but: this means no uncontrolled spigots of media into your children's minds. Most certainly no TV in the home. The medium is the message. Even if you watch only the most uplifting, educational programs, the medium of television itself communicates passivity, apathy, morbidity. You are just a passive spud, sitting consumptively, being fed messages from a centralized, implicitly authoritative and superior beacon of culture.

Join a society, most likely religious, where you and more importantly your children will be surrounded by other people with very high levels of discipline, exercising very high degrees of control over their children.

Surround yourself with and associate with the highest-level people in every way. That doesn't mean rich people, it means hard-working, disciplined people. Nothing but good role-models everywhere for you and your kids.

Pheromone therapy may also play an important role. The good pheromones you get from all the people you're associating with at church and Cub Scouts and whatnot will help, but it may not be enough to push back against the colossal inertia of the civilizational cycle. Unfortunately, pheromone therapy is not yet developed, but it's important that the scientists continue working on it as quickly as possible, because it may end up being an essential aid.


Do you have any other ideas to add?

You are letting your statist show.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You are letting your statist show.

By coming up with a realistic long-term plan to get to statelessness?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Might also have something to do with people spending in their own short term interests, but against their long term intrests. Ie shopping at walmart cause its cheaper, allowing wal to eliminate local competition-and then raise prices. As it seens amazon has done. Heard Bezos was opening brick and mortar bookstores. Oh, goddamn, the irony.

Why is that supposed to be a bad thing?

At worst, you get cheaper prices for a while, and then prices go back up.

But that, in turn, invites yet more competition (against Walmart, this time), which drives prices back down ...

Ceteris paribus, raising prices always gives opportunities for price competition to entrepreneurs.

Markets always clear (when they are allowed to do so ...).

 

[bunklocoempire]

Is my supply chain secure?

There is great satisfaction with DIY.
There is great satisfaction in horse-trading with like minded people.
There is great satisfaction giving a big FU to any third party who would take a cut by force.
There is a moral responsibility to give a big FU to any third party who would take a cut by force.

Support force for a matter of convenience? Any adjustments that can be made, should be made.

Value and pro-active, is where it's at.

I won't buy you a 6 pack of soda at a store, but I will offer you some home made-mason jar-ginger beer or switchel.
I won't buy you an egg McMuffin, but I will offer you some eggs and chicken manure.
I won't join you on Fedbook, but I will offer to have you join me on Diaspora, and you can still cross post to Fedbook.
I won't take FRNs for my labor, but I will take trades of value.
etc.

It's a very satisfying game. mmmm... where could I procure something of greater value, that doesn't support a million government directives?
One foot in their system of aggression (unfortunately), and one foot as far out as possible. I've got a LOT more to do.

I buy our mason jars at Walmart. I buy a lot of our DIY stuff from Walmart. When a better value comes along, we go with that instead of Walmart convenience.

Living on an island, we get to see the store shelves empty out in 3 days or so when there is a major disruption in the supply chain. (hurricanes, ILWU, etc.)
It would be pretty stupid of me to ignore the coming supply chain disaster, so why not prepare and do some good while we're at it?

It's great for the attitude, like you wouldn't believe.

 

[osan]

Might also have something to do with people spending in their own short term interests, but against their long term intrests. Ie shopping at walmart cause its cheaper, allowing wal to eliminate local competition-and then raise prices. As it seens amazon has done. Heard Bezos was opening brick and mortar bookstores. Oh, goddamn, the irony.

Yeah, but it's the smart move. Whether he knew it all along or just twigged to it, Bezos realizes that B&M is the way to go when you are king of the hill precisely because the book that is sitting in one's hot little hands is substantially more likely to go home with you than the one staring back at you from behind a computer screen. The strategy was not terribly sophisticated. It was rather brutish and old-fashioned, but it worked. Kill the competition and take over his territory. It's an old recipe.

What amazed me about the whole dot-bomb deal was how deeply the nitwit public swallowed the bait - all the bullshit and outright lies about the new world that the internet was going to usher in. Between my R&D days at Bell Labs and my hard business experience as a hired gun, I watched in near-disbelief as hordes of people around me would go on about how nobody was going to have to get out of their beds again, much less go to work, have everything delivered into their laps in said beds, and all Americans were going to become millionaires by week's end. It is just about the only thing I can think of, except Kathy Masotta, that has left my jaw in a state of perfect slackness. Even my bottomlessly low opinion of the average man did not quite prepare me for the depth of willful stupidity and blind greed that I witnessed on a daily basis for nearly a decade. The only thing that surprised me was that it lasted as long as it did.

Anyhow, if true, this Amazon thing would appear to have been very well played. Have to hand it to them for brass, fortitude, and keeping it simple, stupid.

 

[osan]

But that, in turn, invites yet more competition (against Walmart, this time), which drives prices back down ...

In days past, yes. Today, I am not that sure. Walmart altered the game by successfully placing nearly all major manufacturers in their pockets. Bear in mind that we do not know the details of the lucrative sales contracts between WallyWorld and its vendors. I hold little doubt that their negotiators are the cream of the cream, meaning they almost certainly have engineered their agreements to the greatest Walmart advantage possible. They may well have the manufacturers locked way up such that competition becomes a practical improbability.

It seems to me that Walmart has been very clever, patient, and careful in how they have established their market position. You can bet your ass they have done everything in their power to reduce the risks of competition to an absolute minimum.

Markets always clear (when they are allowed to do so ...).

The key term in bold, and one that cannot be assumed nowadays.

 

[Occam's Banana]

In days past, yes. Today, I am not that sure. Walmart altered the game by successfully placing nearly all major manufacturers in their pockets. Bear in mind that we do not know the details of the lucrative sales contracts between WallyWorld and its vendors. I hold little doubt that their negotiators are the cream of the cream, meaning they almost certainly have engineered their agreements to the greatest Walmart advantage possible. They may well have the manufacturers locked way up such that competition becomes a practical improbability.

It doesn't matter what arrangements they make with vendors, suppliers and manufacturers (secretly or otherwise). If they manage to drive competitors out of business by undercutting those erstwhile competitors' prices, and subsequently try to jack prices up over market clearing prices, then they'll just be greasing the skids for more of the very competition they've just gone to such pains to eliminate. (And if they don't jack their prices up above market clearing prices ... well, then, there's not really anything to complain about in the first place.)

This is why attempts at monopolization will always fail (and always have failed) unless the wannabe monopolizers get a little help from their friends in government.

Walmart may be able to cut some sweet deals with other business entities, but it can't cut any deals at all with the laws of economics - no matter how creamy its negotiators are.

It seems to me that Walmart has been very clever, patient, and careful in how they have established their market position. You can bet your ass they have done everything in their power to reduce the risks of competition to an absolute minimum.

So should every profit-seeking business. There is nothing wrong with that.

The only question to be concerned about is whether they have used force to quash their competition.

Making clever deals (secretly or otherwise) with vendors, suppliers & manufacturers does not violate this standard.

The key term in bold, and one that cannot be assumed nowadays.

I haven't assumed that markets are being allowed to clear, which is precisely why I offered the parenthetical.

Before building new stores, big retailers like Walmart, Target, etc. will often seek and acquire special anti-competitive accomodations from local municipal governments - such as agreements that other big retailers will not be permitted to erect new stores in the area (this is typically done by the city fathers refusing zoning easements to newcomers, or other such tactics). These kinds of shenanigans are perfectly legitimate causes to denounce and condemn Walmart et al.

But none of these things were mentioned by BV2, to whom I was replying. BV2 made reference only to price competition - and whatever Walmart's sins may be, offering cheaper prices is NOT one of them.

 

[osan]

It doesn't matter what arrangements they make with vendors, suppliers and manufacturers (secretly or otherwise). If they manage to drive competitors out of business by undercutting those erstwhile competitors' prices, and subsequently try to jack prices up over market clearing prices, then they'll just be greasing the skids for more of the very competition they've just gone to such pains to eliminate. (And if they don't jack their prices up above market clearing prices ... well, then, there's not really anything to complain about in the first place.)

And if they keep prices right at the clearing rate, they continue.

Let us not be naive to the fact that Walmart has been decidedly anti-competitive in that they have used force to keep others out.

This is why attempts at monopolization will always fail (and always have failed) unless the wannabe monopolizers get a little help from their friends in government.

This is clearly untrue in point of positive fact because of the reason you state in the same sentence.

Walmart may be able to cut some sweet deals with other business entities, but it can't cut any deals at all with the laws of economics - no matter how creamy its negotiators are.

That may be so, but they may not care in terms of a long view. Who knows what their plans may be? Potential conspiracies aside ( ), even if it takes only twenty years for the giant to collapse under the pressures - hell, only five - that's five years of market distortion. Of course, we then repair to the fact that people chose Walmart with myopic eyes, but I am not sure that argument, while valid, is quite satisfying to all the business owners who were driven out of the market not by free competition, but by the collusion of government with the big-dog to destroy the freedom of the markets.

That all aside, it is clear that no single factor quite defines the problem sufficiently. Collusion, force, consumer greed and stupidity... all contribute.

So should every profit-seeking business. There is nothing wrong with that.

Did not mean to imply it was.

The only question to be concerned about is whether they have used force to quash their competition.

Clearly they have.

Making clever deals (secretly or otherwise) with vendors, suppliers & manufacturers does not violate this standard.

But those with "government" clearly do.

Before building new stores, big retailers like Walmart, Target, etc. will often seek and acquire special anti-competitive accomodations from local municipal governments - such as agreements that other big retailers will not be permitted to erect new stores in the area (this is typically done by the city fathers refusing zoning easements to newcomers, or other such tactics). These kinds of shenanigans are perfectly legitimate causes to denounce and condemn Walmart et al.

And there we have it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Let us not be naive to the fact that Walmart has been decidedly anti-competitive in that they have used force to keep others out.

A fact which I was the first to explicitly acknowledge later in the same post. No one is being naive here.

I was addressing the issue in the context of simple price competition - which was the only issue cited by the poster to whom I originally responded (a context which you preserved in your quotations of me in both your initial reply and subsequent rejoinder).

The poster to whom I originally responded - and your response to my response - made no explicit references to illegitimately forcible inhibitions of competition. I was the the first to make such an explicit reference, in post #38.

This is clearly untrue in point of positive fact because of the reason you state in the same sentence.

It is clearly true in point of positive fact precisely because of the conditional ("unless ...") stated in the same sentence.