SafeAsMilk wrote:I'm sure the imaginary golf facilities there are excellent.

I'm surprised he didn't try to convince the leaders to let him build a golf course, or a tower. But then Africa is full of dark-skinned people, and we know he hates those.

Wait, I thought Scot was referring to Trump's repeated gaffe about the non-existent country of Nambia, I'm so confused

So did I.

Trump on Erdogan, yesterday:

Thank you very much. It’s a great honor and privilege -- because he’s become a friend of mine -- to introduce President Erdoğan of Turkey. He’s running a very difficult part of the world. He’s involved very, very strongly and, frankly, he’s getting very high marks. And he’s also been working with the United States.

We have a great friendship as countries. I think we’re, right now, as close as we have ever been. And a lot of that has to do with the personal relationship.

No, this is not a parody. It comes straight from the White House:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/21/remarks-president-trump-and-president-erdo%C4%9Fan-turkey-bilateral-meeting


And today, Erdogan protesters were beaten and ejected from his New York speech, again:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41358394

6:48

Iran tests a ballistic weapon not long after that bloviating orange rhino colon mouths off at them at the U.N.?
Good job Donnie you complete and utter fuckmuppet.

He certainly knows how to lose friends and win enemies.

So long as Theresa May keeps sucking his cock, he probably doesn't care ...

Something to watch for today: https://twitter.com/hashtag/taketheknee

Jesus, even the NFL are having to resist this gobshite.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1BZ0HQ

It became impossible long ago, to think of Trump's output without thinking of the word "wanktard" in connection thereto, but this really does shine an embarrassing spotlight on his inadequacies. Even before we consider his recrudescent brand of adherence to white supremacy, the manner in which he demands, in petulant foot-stomping toddler fashion, that everyone obeys his orders and kisses his ringpiece, speaks not only of clinically significant preening narcissism, but of a frankly creepy Svengali tendency, of the sort that has long been associated with sexual predators. Though matters are doubtless compounded by the fact that he almost certainly shares a mindset, with the most atavistic examples of inbred neuronal degradation to be found lurking under the stones that are the natural dwelling-place of the racist right's most foetid specimens.

One is left with the thought, that the hallucination scene from Pink Floyd's The Wall was written for Trump, not least because of his behaviour on the campaign trail, but principally because he really does think the world revolves around him. Self-regard, self-aggrandisement to a degree reminiscent of the comment "vainglorious self-deification" uttered by one critic of Michael Jackson's HIStory, indeed, the entire pathology of "me, me, exquisite me", combined with that special brand of art-house disregard of others so assiduously cultivated by old-money pompous windbags and spivvy arrivistes alike, swirls as a maelstrom around him.

It is not so much that he presents to the world, the aura of being completely bereft of redeeming features, that truly nauseates when contemplating this individual. The world has, sadly, been afflicted by numerous blights arising from persons ranging across a spectrum starting at the merely devious, embracing in its centre the manifestly criminal, to end at the floridly unbalanced. What causes the taste of vomit to rise in the oesophagus, is that this latest pestilence has enjoyed throughout his life, advantages and privileges few can even fantasise about, and instead of putting those gifts to constructive use, chose instead to plough a course mired in the seedy, the sleazy, and the outright tacky. From the financially expensive but aesthetically cheap and vulgar excesses he surrounds himself with, such as that gold plated elevator doubtless ordered in pursuit of a Midas mirage, famously featured with that other reprobate Nigel Farage within its confines, to the arbitrary nature of his decisions, many of which transcended rococo comic opera some time ago, he offers to the world a disturbing vision of a modern-day Caligula, a dissolute emperor trying, yet failing, to become a god here on Earth, but without even the acumen of that legendary despot. The historically astute will find numerous reasons for the comparison of choice wielded here, but that self-deification aspect is perhaps the most important thereof. Though, in classic Dunning-Kruger style, he sees himself as some sort of apotheosis of the human species, whilst not even possessing the attributes required to make a competent bottom wiper in the service of lower primates with ribald-hued buttocks. Perhaps the analogy will see completion in future, should he choose to elevate a horse to political office: though even the emergence of such a moment may not, I fear, be enough to persuade the Republican Party to divest themselves of this excrescence once and for all.

Cali, that is really beautiful writing.

Indeed it is.

I've been saying, since he first appeared on the political stage, in a previous attempt at the presidency, which he failed against other Republican candidates, that the man is the personification of everything that is vile and hateful in the human species. That he appeals to enough people for him to have won the presidency against the most qualified candidate we've seen for a long time (and yes I'm well-aware of her flaws), is an indication of the decline of the common decency in the average American. Even if he hadn't won, that he had such a huge support base, should be a wake-up call to people who do have a sense of decency.

Something needs to be done to fix American society. That people are offended when their fellow citizens fail to put hands over their hearts, or pledge allegiance to a manufactured division of land, or when women merely feed their babies in view of other people, should make people who use their brains to think, want to do something to fix the situation. All I can see happening is that American society, and the reign of the US as the "leader" of the western world is in decline. Like all other empires, it is on the verge of collapse, having almost reached the magical 250 year breaking point.

I first read about this in my youth, before I'd made any in-depth study of history. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf



There are people who refute Glubb's theory, but the dates are there, and they show that even if a society exists past the 250 year mark, they are not structured in the same way. The Roman Empire for example existed after 250CE, but it was not the same once it outgrew its manageability. This is what is happening to the United States. I think so anyway. So what's next? Will there be a major conflict that will create a "new" world, or will humankind continue to decline until humans disappear from the earth? have we reached the ultimate level of evolution for humans?

I found these on Google Scholar:

Pasha Glubb and the Age of Empires.

Hmm, interesting ... Aggie, has Glubb by any chance been a student of Oswald Spengler?

American society is unique only if you believe in American exceptionalism.

Any government that's overly cozy with the US should probably be checking their privilege. I'll just let that stew for awhile.

Calilasseia wrote:Hmm, interesting ... Aggie, has Glubb by any chance been a student of Oswald Spengler?

I'm not familiar with Spengler, Cali, but it seems not, not seriously, or formally, anyway. He was a career soldier, according to his Wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bagot_Glubb

I had a read-through of Spengler's page, and the one on the decline of the west, which has now enlightened me somewhat. Interesting that he speaks of a "downfall" of western society.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

You'd think that having a philosopher in the family, I would know a little more than I do on the subject, but, sadly, most of his learning happened after he left home, and since he married, we haven't been able to indulge in the hours-long discussions (mostly armchair on my part) we used to have when he lived at home. When he first started studying Philosophy in the 1990s, he gave me something to read on the subject of the age of empires, which is what first piqued my interest in the US, because I was aware of the 200-year celebrations in the 1970s. I don't remember what it was.

I've searched for something more than Glubb on this subject, but all my internet searches lead back to him. Here's an interesting discussion on Quora on the subject.

Personally I think the 250-year idea is too much of a generalisation if you consider ancient cultures, and what is defined by a civilisation. However, in the modern world, it seems to me that cultures rise, go through a period of development, a period where they plateau, then become worn out/too unwieldy/have too much bureaucracy/over-militaristic, or something else happens that causes a breakdown in their society. Looking at the US, it developed as an idea at about the same time our country did, for more or less the same reasons. They took their independence, whereas we continued for 500 years (almost) as the vassals of a colonial overlord. The US had their war of independence, we had our war of rebellion against our colonial lords, a sort of independence war. They won, we lost. They continued until their society became divided, over slavery, and then re-established their society, but because of their war, maintained and improved their military. We lost, and for 50 years went through political upheaval first right, then right of right, and finally a more liberal wing emerged. America was Christian and right and right of right, and now is developing a small liberal, and non-religious wing, but because the influence of Christianity has grown since the administration of George W Bush, and the dumbing down of their education, the religious right has gained in strength. On top of this, even though they don't want to be involved in the world's problems, they are, and they wage war wherever possible to make themselves if not the nannies of the rest of the world, then the military the rest of the world fears. Until the brat in North Korea started feeling his power. These two spoilt offspring of stupid bullying parents could dump the world in a holocaust.

For us, we quietly changed from a religion-run elitist and privileged form of government to a more inclusive, less religious one. Unfortunately for us, the people who took over brought with them the pain from their previous oppression, so they've put policies in place that cause the religious right to feel marginalised. This could be a problem but I think the exclusion of religion from our public policies has prevented religion being an issue in our politics. In America, between their religion, ignorance, patriotism, and militaristic culture, with this nincompoop in charge, as I said a holocaust could ensue, or it will simply collapse, and certainly if there is a successful secession by the more liberal states. My opinion is that is what should happen. The states who are against this facile, poor excuse for a world leader, should make the moves required to make themselves a coalition against him. They should use their state powers to make themselves attractive to people who don't want to live in the world the pussy-grabber is creating. It could eventually, over time, lead to a referendum, especially if they refuse to finance federal policies, and more especially war. In this way they could create a newer, better place for those who are disillusioned with the poverty and warmongering this man will cause, and leave to make their own republic.

For us, it's just a matter of getting the corrupt politicians out of power. With better government, we can continue to grow, eventually leading to our own real, and obvious development, to a plateau in around 2100, and if we don't try to conquer the rest of Africa, and work with them, Africa could be the next great empire for the next 250 years, to 2350. Anyway, that's what I think. As I said, just armchair philosophy. I don't think I'm wrong that this man is going to create a little more havoc for the west before he is either eventually impeached, dies of natural causes, loses the 2020 election, or is murdered. I hope he isn't murdered because then he'd become a martyr and the world will have to deal with the dynasty of Trump.

Cito di Pense wrote:American society is unique only if you believe in American exceptionalism.

Any government that's overly cozy with the US should probably be checking their privilege. I'll just let that stew for awhile.

Yeah, I think the UK cozying up to him with May and Brexit is in for some serious problems too. I'm quite pleased Merkel is back. Hopefully by the time the rest of Europe changes leaders they'll be a little more disenchanted with the orange menace.

I've seen a couple of other collections of data that show the US has started demonstrating all the hallmarks of past empires about to crumble. One of the major signs is the growth of rent-seeking as the predominate generator of 'income'. The best example of this in today's world is the derivative markets that do nothing productive, they only shuffle account values, at ever accelerating rates, generating massive profits that are probably the largest piece of the GDP, though the 'p' there is a sham.

And now, Trump is opening the door to all rent-seekers no matter how base their motivation. Perhaps the most dangerous is the attempt to kill net neutrality, we thought we won that, at least for a while, not a mere couple of years.

crank wrote:I've seen a couple of other collections of data that show the US has started demonstrating all the hallmarks of past empires about to crumble. One of the major signs is the growth of rent-seeking as the predominate generator of 'income'. The best example of this in today's world is the derivative markets that do nothing productive, they only shuffle account values, at ever accelerating rates, generating massive profits that are probably the largest piece of the GDP, though the 'p' there is a sham.

And now, Trump is opening the door to all rent-seekers no matter how base their motivation. Perhaps the most dangerous is the attempt to kill net neutrality, we thought we won that, at least for a while, not a mere couple of years.

What is called "rent-seeking" is basically job insecurity. It's starting to happen here, and that bothers me. No security, you just sign a contract, without benefits for a few months, and you have to renew it when it runs out. This prevents the employer from providing "benefits". So you have to provide your own healthcare, and pension. Our government it seems is starting to notice this, and to create more security for employees, introducing a national health scheme. Employers already have to deduct unemployment insurance contributions from all employees, I'm not sure but I don't think from "contract" employees. This means that everyone will have health cover in government-provided facilities, even if you also have private insurance, and if you lose your job, you're covered for a few months with a percentage of your income. This however is only if you're let go through no fault of your own. If you resign, or are fired, you lose that benefit. Pensions, there isn't a government scheme in place for contributions, they do have a universal payment for everyone over 65 on a means test. So because my husband has private insurance and we own our house, we don't get it.

On net neutrality, that is a problem. When the government seeks to intrude on your internet use, you're bordering on censorship, well it is censorship, and that's not something you want them to do. It's frightening.

The ordinary person in general is sidelined in societies like the US, even though the trumpets don't realise it, the more they vote for people like him, the more freedoms they're going to lose.

That's a different kind of rent-seeking. It's a technical term, economics-jargon, it basically means activities that are not in themselves productive, but only serve to gain profits. It's the rent-seeking that's causing a lot of the job insecurity. This looks like an interesting recent piece on this behaviour: Great Problems: An Epidemic of Rent-seeking, and it goes back to the Romans for an example:

A most severe case of runaway rent-seeking was described by the historian Rostovtvzeff, who wrote of the late Roman empire:

The reforms of Diocletian and Constantine, by implementing a policy of systematic spoliation to the profit of the State, made all productive activity impossible. The reason is, not that there were no more large fortunes: on the contrary, their build-up was made easier. But the foundation of their build-up was now no longer creative energy, or the discovery and bring into use the new sources of wealth, or the improvement and development of husbandry, industry and commerce. It was, on the contrary, the cunning exploitation of a privileged position in the State, used to despoil people and State alike. The officials, great and small, got rich by way of fraud and corruption.

crank wrote:That's a different kind of rent-seeking. It's a technical term, economics-jargon, it basically means activities that are not in themselves productive, but only serve to gain profits. It's the rent-seeking that's causing a lot of the job insecurity. This looks like an interesting recent piece on this behaviour: Great Problems: An Epidemic of Rent-seeking, and it goes back to the Romans for an example:

A most severe case of runaway rent-seeking was described by the historian Rostovtvzeff, who wrote of the late Roman empire:

The reforms of Diocletian and Constantine, by implementing a policy of systematic spoliation to the profit of the State, made all productive activity impossible. The reason is, not that there were no more large fortunes: on the contrary, their build-up was made easier. But the foundation of their build-up was now no longer creative energy, or the discovery and bring into use the new sources of wealth, or the improvement and development of husbandry, industry and commerce. It was, on the contrary, the cunning exploitation of a privileged position in the State, used to despoil people and State alike. The officials, great and small, got rich by way of fraud and corruption.

To me, that's what long lunches sound like: an activity that isn't productive, but is used to get people to invest in whatever it is you're selling.

This is why I couldn't pass Economics. I don't understand this at all:

The origin of the term refers to gaining control of land or other natural resources.

Georgist economic theory describes rent-seeking in terms of land rent, where the value of land largely comes from government infrastructure and services (e.g. roads, public schools, maintenance of peace and order, etc.) and the community in general, rather than from the actions of any given landowner, in their role as mere titleholder. This role must be separated from the role of a property developer, which need not be the same person.

Rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of what is needed to keep it employed in its current use) by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth. Rent-seeking implies extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking