Milton
-
Posts
20 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Milton
-
-
10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
Keynesian economics reaching it's only logical conclusion: collapse.
I'm by no means an expert on monetary policy, but it is fascinating that the same people who bemoan "trickle down economics" are generally the same types that support Keynesian principles like central banking, manipulating the business cycle, and fiat currency which generally follows a path from the Federal Reserve, to national banks, to large corporations and smaller banks, investors, smaller banks, and then on to the working class. It almost sounds like...wait, no that can't be.
I think your graph summed that up pretty well; quantitative easing (aka money printing) lined up pretty nicely with spikes in wealth amongst the top 0.1%.
But I'm sure the "Inflation Reduction Act" will reduce inflation...
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, nsplayr said:
Deal’s still live for Milton on the gold standard making a come back.
Oh I'm not saying it's going to happen, in fact its highly unlikely any government would revert to a gold standard. It would be a safe and stable alternative to fiat currency, but its probably too big of a swing for financial markets, governments, and banks who rely on free and easy money.
-
9 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
At the end we'll end up back on the gold standard, or something similar. It'll be a generation or two before the world trusts fiat currency again. But they always go back to it, because rulers always have bigger dreams than they have wallets, and voters are easily bought.
We either need to go back to a gold standard, or have people who are disciplined, ethical, and transparent managing the currency and peg inflation to GDP growth (e.g. 2% per year). Since the latter is nearly impossible due to inevitable human corruption and a fickle, disinterested citizenry, the former is probably the best solution.
-
On 7/19/2022 at 1:59 PM, nunya said:
By describing the landlord and Cara using gender binary pronouns of "him" and "her," respectively, the Brits are reinforcing the patriarchy wherein the male holds the power of property ownership and the female is relegated to the role of subservient, dependent tenant. Furthermore, they are reinforcing the heteronormative, chauvinist worldview by establishing the toxic male as the aggressor upon the female. A gender nonconforming example would have been much more appropriate.
Well done, Comrade. Seven social credits have been added to your account.
-
3
-
-
On 7/20/2022 at 6:58 AM, Random Guy said:
This is not a particularly good technique for spreading information that supports your argument. I'm happy to read opposing points of view. When you've identified which pieces best apply to your argument, let me know so I can read them.
The intersection of economics and war is an underdeveloped space. War and violence finds its source in economic systems and phenomenon. No need to be coy with useful data if you have it. Share it.
You are a strange bird indeed. You state that you voted for Trump, elude to following the economist Minsky, play dumb in response to a satirical (but hilarious) comment about social issues, and post all sorts of drivel about banking, MMT, and the like to "educate" others as if you're slowly revealing what's behind the curtain in the modern banking and economic system.
Stop trying to play cat and mouse with your posts. If you have ideological priors or foundational beliefs, just state them instead of trying to play Socrates on an anonymous forum.
-
1
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, Prozac said:
Nice try linking today’s left to the Nazis. The far left and the far right don’t come close to meeting. They are polar opposites. At the far left end you have socialism (you know, real actual socialism where the government owns and runs everything…usually poorly, vs. calling anyone who ever voted for a democrat a socialist) and communism. On the far right is fascism/nationalism (like the Nazis….I won’t go into their history or why they were never really Socialist here. There are plenty of places to read all about it). Agree that both extremes lead to absolutism & eventual collapse which is why most aspiring normal folk should strive to stay far, far away from the fringes.
Unfortunately the notions of "left" and "right" today are obscured by cultural and historic definitions, as the left and right "wings" harken back to the national assembly during the period of the French Revolution. The two-dimensional "political spectrum" only muddies these concepts as, in practice, separating economic and social liberty (or control) is near impossible. People tend to form political associations based on broad ideological beliefs (e.g. freedom vs control) or by more empirical or granular issues (e.g. tax rates, abortion, gun control, regulation, etc), none of which are easily placed in a single quadrant.
Assuming the "far left" and "far right," meaning the commonly understood totalitarian ideologies of communism and fascism, don't come close to "meeting" presents a false choice, with the "moderate" position simply being placed between the two. Communism (or in practice, socialism) and fascism have more in common than most realize as they are both collectivist ideologies that subordinate the individual to the group, whose locus of control is by default the state. Unlike classical liberalism, neither recognizes the sanctity of the individual, and their rights, if any, are merely utilitarian and subject to the whims of the state and the party. The term "fascism" has latin roots, symbolically as a bundle of sticks fastened together (symbolizing the strength of the group under the leader). The ideological origins of fascism in Italy, first authored by Giovanni Gentile and practiced by Mussolini, were actually socialist in character.
QuoteGentile went so far as to declare “Fascism is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form.” One of the most common reflections on this is that fascism is itself socialism based on national identity.
https://fee.org/articles/theres-no-denying-the-socialist-roots-of-fascism/
Gentile was influenced not only by Karl Marx, the father of authoritarian socialism, but also Hegel, who was essentially the ideological grandfather of authoritarian socialism (Marx's main man), having developed the notions of dialectical historicism and German idealism (awful!). His convoluted philosophy ultimately boils down to nothing more than nineteenth century alchemy that influenced a number of terrible ideas and regimes.
While many historical and contemporary advocates of socialism have decried any common ideological roots or practical similarities between socialism/communism and fascism/nazism, these splinters are regular features in their ideologies. For example, the infighting between Bolsheviks & Mensheviks during the Russian Revolution, the left-opposition against the Stalinist "right," the purging of party members following Lenin's death (and Trotsky's ultimate demise by icepick to the skull) under Stalin, the Night of the Long Knives (Nazi "socialist workers party" members killed by Hitler), and so on. These ideological "splits" demonstrate that just because one faction is opposed to the other, they are not polar opposites but merely dissenting factions.
Practically speaking, both Nazism/fascism and socialism/communism as political and economic systems concentrate power under the state. Both are opposed to free market capitalism, private property rights, and individual liberty. Its well understood that both systems restrict or eliminate civil liberties and clamp down on dissent, freedom of speech/expression, privacy, etc. What's more telling is the similarity in their economic systems. Many socialist ideologies propose that the means of production will be owned by "the workers" which, due to its absurdity, gives rise to the state ownership of production, i.e. a centrally planned, state-run economy that eliminates market and price signals and private property rights. Fascism and nazism likewise take control of existing private enterprises, eliminate or restrict property rights, and establish wage and price controls under state mandates.
QuoteAs an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it.
Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Here's an even better example. Look at the proposed economic policies of a Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist) or an Elizabeth Warren (Progressive Dem) type and compare them to Fascist Italy...
QuoteA former school teacher, Mussolini’s spending on the public sector, schools and infrastructure was considered extravagant. Mussolini "instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivaled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages; swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forests were planted and universities were endowed".[21] As for the scope and spending on social welfare programs, Italian fascism "compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive".[22] When New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian fascism in 1939, the reply was: "It is like your New Deal!".[23]
By 1925, the Fascist government had "embarked upon an elaborate program" that included food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing and old age and disability insurance.[24] As for public works, the Mussolini's administration "devoted 400 million lire of public monies" for school construction between 1922 and 1942, compared to only 60 million lire between 1862 and 1922.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Fascist_Italy
I'm sure none of us favor a political or economic system that is "far left" (communist) or "far right (fascist)" but given this dichotomy would likely describe ourselves as "moderate." But placing oneself in between fascism and communism is...absurd. If one were to ask your political beliefs, would you say "Well, I'm somewhere between Stalin and Hitler"? That...doesn't sound right. If we look at the ideologies and history of these regimes, it becomes obvious that liberal, free-market capitalism (what we nominally have in the West) is not in between the far left and far right, but rather completely separate and opposed to either system. If anything, fascism is between free market capitalism and communism.
-
4
-
-
Many of these physical or kinetic storage systems are indeed hypothetically possible, but run into the same geographic, environmental, hydrological, and size constraints that nuclear systems do (for similar or varied reasons).
The upfront costs for nuclear generation are significant - you need a large piece of real estate, access to freshwater, and buffers to natural and human environments in the event something bad happens. It also takes a shit ton of concrete, steal, and other infrastructure to get a plant up and running. But once they're running, you have several decades of reliable, consistent generation.
With a pumped storage system, you need to have the right environmental and geographical factors in a watershed that will allow a large delta in water flow between high/low levels (California...good luck!). That's a shit ton of water to smooth demand in a large metro area. This has massive effects on hydrology up and downstream from the generator. That's a lot of earth, construction materials, and water just to store energy. You then need all the space for a solar or wind farm for generation.
Nuclear has hurdles, but really doesn't need storage or peaking capacity like renewables do. We are still going to need fuels for aviation, transportation, and heating in the near future but nuclear is the best way forward for clean and reliable electricity.
-
Pumped storage has been around for a while, and its only used at small scale to smooth peak loads. It was primarily used as a revenue source over periods between high and low demand and supply constraints...e.g. hot summer days constrained by supply and thermal factors and night time when demand decreased. This works by using excess load during the night to pump water up into a reservoir, then use the same penstock/turbine as a generator system during the day to meet increased load. It basically allowed small generator systems to make revenue by meeting demand during a niche period. After all of the infrastructure costs and efficiency loss in the system, they can squeeze out a small profit during a specific period of time.
At scale, this is limited by a number of factors, e.g. geographical location, topography, environmental and hydrological concerns, and system size. I believe the linked video demonstrates the difficulty in achieving any sort of net returns at both small and large scales...there's small "sweet spot" that can smooth demands at local or regional levels.
This technology has been around for 100+ years and every so often it gets brought up by alternative energy advocates and activists. Its basically a feel-good story that has numerous constraints that limit its practical application. The same tree huggers calling for alternative energy are going to be pissed when massive areas are cleared for a reservoir and aquatic ecosystems are destroyed.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:
The thing is, we do have a limited but well defined federal government.... in the Constitution, but the federal government has been allowed to keep growing farther from the Constitution and outright ignores it now. One example that shows the suck is how the federal government uses the carrot on a stick of federal highway funding to coerce states into doing what the federal government wants them to do. More states must, and are starting to, reassert their federal 10th amendment right. Remember, the federal government is subservient to the states; the federal government is only a consensually agreed to compact among the states. See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. It's a shame the federal government has grown to lie about this though. This is probably the first post of yours I agree with wholeheartedly.
We are supposed to have a federal gov whose power is limited and well defined. We DO NOT have one in practice, and havent had one since the early 20th century.
The federal government is not completely subservient to the States. By incorporation, the States cannot violate federal law, specifically the Constitution and its Ammendment. Your statement seems to imply one or some of the States can ignore or suspend the Bill of Rights (eg California could eliminate free speech, due process, or the right to bear arms). The federal gov would only be "subservient" to the States in these matters if, by Constitutional Convention, state legislatures voided the Constitution (I think...Im not a legal scholar). Unless you meant something different.
Ive made a grand total of like 5 or 6 posts on this board, mostly regarding AFRC stuff. My only other was primarily about the cultural differences between the US and AFG.
-
"In the meantime, American citizens will separate into their usual camps and identify all of the obvious causes and culprits except for one: themselves."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/afghanistan-your-fault/619769/
Of all the things the American public and our elected leaders in Congress regularly pontificate about, the discussion about one of our most fundamental and somber duties, the ability to wage war, is rarely debated. In the past week its now on the forefront of the American mind, as if the Afghanistan conflict suddenly arose out of thin air.
The American public argues about mundane and irrelevant issues, and expects a Congressional inquiry into everything from steroids in the MLB (2004's hotbutton issue which had more time on the House floor than GWOT) to who can use what bathroom.
If only we maintained some semblance of "limited but well defined" in our federal government we'd have the attention span to discuss the more important issues while leaving irrelevant ones to individuals, or at least to the state gov's.
I usually hate the idea of raising taxes to fund central govt, but the concept of a wartime tax, as an additional line item on every tax paying American's weekly pay deduction (to include Social Security and welfare benefits) might possibly be enough to remind them there is a conflict being waged somewhere on their behalf. Ideally people would engage with their elected leaders and hold them to their Constitutional duties to declare war (Art 1 Sec-8 ) while holding the executive accountable (War Powers Act) but that might be asking a bit much. Maybe a 1% War Tax as a fiscal constraint, would translate into moral inquiry or social responsibility. As was said ~15 years ago, "America is not at war, America is at the mall" (exception to those serving or having a loved one in the military). That quote remains true today, although Id update to reflect the decline of shopping malls in favor of online shopping...
The growth of the Executive Branch and an impotent Legislature, combined with an indifferent public is not only bad for National Security policy but governance in general. That, and the Fed's ability to print money/buy up debts doesnt help.
-
3
-
-
When I did SOS online a few years ago, the points posted everytime I finished a class (there were 8 or so modules). But that was the old system, pre-ASU.
-
6 minutes ago, RedEye1911 said:
We better fight them over there or we'll have to fight them over here!!! /S
1. Geopolitical enemy (USSR/China) involved on 3rd world
2. Arm/equip Mujahadeen
3. ??
4. Profit/democracy/hearts 'n minds
-
I tried finding this out recently (currently in ACSC/OLMP). I submitted a ticket/inquiry to ASU but, not surprisingly, they had no idea since ECI points are an AFRC/ARPC thing, outside of the school.
I asked on some AU board (forget the site, might have been an AU commercial website), got a random phone number that ended up being an AU staffers cell phone (wtf?) and called other various numbers at Maxwell to no avail. Aggravating, yes. Surprised, not in the least.
Seems like AU has completely divested themselves from involvement in the distance learning platforms, which in most cases is great, but for the few AF-specific issues, good luck getting any help. Would be curious to see what others have found.
-
"The Taliban are desperate to get supplies of medium range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) from China"
-
1
-
1
-
-
To think that the "country" of Afghanistan, made up of some 50 dialects and numerous tribes and villages, would somehow embrace twenty-first century democratic governance...is a bit flawed.
Our military did just about everything asked of it at the tactical and operational levels...from counterterrorism, intel, local stability ops, close air support, airlift, provincial reconstruction, logistics, etc. The broader strategy was a farce. We ousted al Qaeda and crippled the Taliban in short order. It took 10 years, but we got bin Laden (in Pakistan, go figure). But we evolved and expanded objectives foolishly. Rebuilding Afg, installing democratic governance, and the like.
What we should have realized is that Afghanistan is not so much of a country, but a place simply bounded by other sovereign borders. Its mostly tribes, living in an ancient, almost savage like subsistence. Vulnerable to takeover by extremists like the Taliban, but incapable of modern governance, foreign to human rights and civil liberties. Its painful to think of the handful of decent people there who, for a fleeting moment grasped some form of western ideal. The young women and children who saw a glimmer of hope in that they might be treated as equals, and have some form of opportunity without violent oppression. All if this overshadowed by an arcane savagery, cowardice, or ambivalence in the face of the Taliban.
While I feel sorrow for some, I am nearly indifferent to the many who are indifferent themselves. Beyond political struggle, economic development, and social progress is one immovable hegemon: culture. Their culture, to the extent it can be defined...sucks.
If you were to find a bum on the side of the road and place him into Harvard Medical School, what would happen? To think a western coalition, in a matter of two decades would transform Afghanistan into a modern democracy is a fools errand.
The world is a strange place.
-
2
-
8
-
-
Question for reservists currently in or have completed ACSC/OLMP in ASU: do Retirement (ECI) points get automatically updated in vMPF? Do we still get points for OLMP classes?
I finished my first class several weeks ago and havent seen anything. Called a bunch of different numbers between ASU and AU and the only answer I got was to submit a request through mypers and/or contact TFSC.
When I did SOS online a few years ago they auto-updated the points from AU, but since its thru ASU now maybe that doesnt happen.
-
Note: Tried searching this topic in the forum and found very little on it specifically.
Is there a general consensus or standard on how/when to request an accelerated promotion in AFRC? According to Mypers its a letter pushed through VPC to ARPC. Have a date but its > 1 yr out, which puts me at 7 yrs TIG/11 yrs total service for O-4. Seems strange considering PVs are promoting at 5 yrs TIG/9 yrs total basically giving them a 2 year advantage.
My CC sounds like he would consider pushing the request to Sr Rater (Wg/CC) but not sure what kind of justification is required to get an O-6 to approve. Right now my unit is grossly undermanned for officers, and the career field (last i heard) was hurting for FGOs.
-
5 hours ago, Velosprints said:
I wanna say they wanted to see a recent AFCM. But this is all speculation. I learned this after I called for my “post board counseling.” I had asked if anything jumped off the paper as reasons to why I got passed over, and the lady at ARPC said it’s was lack of medal and that referral. She wasn’t on the board, so she couldn’t say for sure.
Interesting. I tried pushing one through just before the most recent Maj board but its stuck in "review"...hopefully having a deployment dec from ~3 yrs ago made them happy. Now I'm a little worried.
Not sure if the new promotion competitive categories will help/hurt, but Sq/CCs can sign off on AFCMs now (at least in AFRC) so less time waiting for an O6 to sign.
I'm guessing the covid19 crisis will delay SAF approval/public release of the most recent board.
-
How stringent are the AFRC LAF promotion boards for O4? Everything I heard from my unit/base was to 1) Have SOS done and 2) No UIF in your record and the last few spreadsheets on VPC had ~95% promotion rates.
Did they specify what they meant by "no recent award" - type of award (AFCM/AFAM), or having one for each tour?
Investment showdown -- beyond the Roth, SDP, & TSP
in Squadron Bar
Posted · Edited by Milton
Of course! Just like the bread lines and literacy programs in Cuba were A GOOD THING (in my best Bernie Sanders accent).
Sure. After various economic factors in the 1970s like oil shortages and the Carter administration we had an uphill battle. Reagan also accumulated ~$1T in debt (if I remember my numbers correctly). But you know what else he did? Spent that money to win the Cold War. A pretty good bargain if you ask me.
I love the arbitrary standards we use to judge the economy. Remember when we used to call two consecutive quarters of negative growth a recession but then changed the definition of a recession so we didn't have one? Or when the cost of a 4th of July cookout was down $0.69 from the previous year?
The economy *looks good* depending on how you look at The Numbers. My 401K, TSP, brokerage account, IRAs, and college savings did very well the last year or so (14-17% range for most of them). That's great. But I don't buy groceries, pay my utility bills, or my insurance premiums with that money. My family does well, my investments have done well, but I'll be damned if I don't see the difference in the amount of money I have left at the end of the month after I pay all the bills. And for your average American who lives just above the paycheck-to-paycheck threshold, its much worse. But again, The Numbers look good. If you're a wealthy family, The Numbers look even better, especially when inflation, scarcity, and real estate are less of a concern. But for Joe Blow who doesn't have the flexibility to invest when The Numbers look good, well, things aren't so good.
That's not to mention the 35T national debt, Social Security going insolvent in a few years (according to its own Board of Trustees and the CBO), record credit card debt, and about 10 million illegals who will need education, housing, and healthcare while simultaneously driving down wages for working class Americans.
I never bought too hard into the "party switch" of pre/post 1960s, but it certainly seems like we're in the midst of one now.