Thursday, July 21, 2016

Ben Tarnoff — Donald Trump, Peter Thiel and the death of democracy


Peter Thiel gets it. Capitalism and democracy are antithetical.

The Guardian
Donald Trump, Peter Thiel and the death of democracy
Ben Tarnoff
ht Kevin Fathi

18 comments:

Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gary Hart said...

It must be nice to be rich and spout BS about how we don’t need democracy. Mr. Theil had better hope that all of his lifetimes are spent being wealthy.

Matt Franko said...

Well Theil being a homosexual he probably feels like he has been under attack by the majority his whole life so he probably has lost all respect for the majority and hence majority rule...

Greg said...

True Matt, I think you may be onto something there.

But has the majority really stopped him? In fact this country has done much to help people like him because I think a majority of people, even many who are personally against how he lives, think he should be able to get educated, work and then live where or how he wants. In fact democracy has worked in his favor I think.
The "silent majority" of Falwell was not a majority, it just made the majority of the noise. In fact it was less than 40% of the people.
I cite the silent majority because it is those white christo fascists that have made Thiel feel as if he was under attack his while life... and now he wants to go vote with them?

He may be educated and rich but he's an idiot.

Matt Franko said...

Greg he's a materialist systems guy at core... so his priorities relate to material systems not social systems...(I can relate....)

He gave a good speech last night which imo reveals a lot about him and Trump... he caught on to Trump describing himself as "a builder"... they are both "builders"...

"builders" take an indirect approach to socio-economic injustice they work thru establsihing/building/operating material systems... they think if we can get our material systems (Tom's 'industrial capital') all up and running then this will result in perhaps a complete elimination of socio-economic injustice ... while all the SJWs would take a more direct approach thru pure financial redistribution (Tom's 'finance capital') like taxes and subsidies...

I think Tom is on to something here where he is pointing out that this whole thing is setting up as a big war between finance capital and industrial capital...

I think we should be thinking it will take a combination of both types rather than taking sides in this thing... if you walk up to two morons arguing, a non-moron person wouldnt jump in on the one side...

(btw I used to really hate him back when he was into all of his heavy libertarian shit but I never knew he was gay AND still trying to fellowship with Christians so when I found this out it really changed my mind about him he has really been put in a tough spot here .. cant be a lot of fun for him...)

Tom Hickey said...

I think Tom is on to something here where he is pointing out that this whole thing is setting up as a big war between finance capital and industrial capital...


I got it from Michael Hudson who credits Karl Marx. Hudson updated the understanding of it, saying he doesn't think that Marx would have foreseen this degree of reversal in his wildest dreams. Finance capital now controls the world and is going for the throat.

Ignacio said...

"He may be educated and rich but he's an idiot."

You are right. Only idiots like Thiel with their very limited world views by being spoiled because they have lived only under democratic (or kind of) regimes think they would be better on "libertarian" (which would in practice change into feudalism) paradise or dictatorships.

Spoiled kids.

Ignacio said...

Or more correctly and probably closer to the truth: he knows that being gay has never ever been a problem if you were rich, even in the most odious of regimes (fuck poor gays though; but fuck the poor, right Mr.Thiel?).

intajake said...

Thiel is a classiest dick.

But I'm with him on the massive spending on R+D.

I would even untax wages and profits.

Mazzucato style/cold war level spending on R+D and infrastructure.

That's gives the economy to expand productive capacity which improves capacity.

But an other part of improving economic efficiency is infrastructure which lowers the cost of living and doing businesses.

It makes sense for the state to provide
Public utilities and services at cost to the public,especially natural monopolies like rail,electricity transitor network.as the lack of a profit mark up in public ran output creates a cost efficiencies which transmits into greater purchasing power and demand and improved living standards.

this includes higher education and health care as well.

What's needed is a ricardian socialist system which taxes out all the economic rent and allows the productive sector to run at full efficiency whilst the state spends infrastructure and supports cold war level research and development.And creates cost efficiencies through public provision of higher education ,healthcare,pension system,natural monopoly utilities/post and a public bank/financial services.

This lifts purchasing power and the gov is constantly expanding the input /output ratio of wealth creation capacity through tech /science investment.

And cutting out all the unearned income which absorbs national income and redistributes income up to a rentier elite.Creating a high wage,high productivity which is automatically matched and ensures economic sustainability and prevent wynne godley style sectoral imbalances which creat structural problems for the economy.This systems ability to provide the household sector with high purchasing power whilst allowing firms to have high profit rates is essential to maintaining a well run sustainable economic engine which is always in equilibrium.

Fundamental to this is of course a Georgist 100% land value tax.

Whilst the economy is stripped off income taxes,sales tax and social security deductions.

You could also add in limited intelligent import controls and strict immigration controls.plus limit derivatives to one's that actually hedge a trade of a real commodity/transaction. (That one is from bill)

http://michael-hudson.com/2011/10/simon-patten-on-public-infrastructure-and-economic-rent-capture/

http://michael-hudson.com/2012/07/veblens-institutionalist-elaboration-of-rent-theory/


I guess this expanded ricardian socialist approach is from Michael Hudson's reference to Simon Patten.

And combine mazzucato and influences from ha-joon cha.


British facist Oswald Mosley was an MMT/Functional finance pro job program deficit spending during the great depression http://www.oswaldmosley.net

And an opponent of financial sector (city of london) which would undermine any attempt to restructure the economy

http://www.oswaldmosley.net/the-political-aims-of-british-union.php

But yeh thiel is classist dick who hates ppl who might have had to rely on unemployment insurance in between jobs.


intajake said...

Mosley was more Keynesian that Keynes and pre-dated Keynes!

Kaivey said...

I've just read his book, Killing the Host. Superb. Crammed with detail. It took me all week to read it.

I also read the millennial's Money by JD Alt. It didn't seem much different to what Positive Money is saying. It was full of great MMT ideas about house to spend government money in a way that does not encroach on the private sector. I thought this was far too cautious. I wild like to see public banks, nationalised railways and buses, telecoms, airways, and postal services, etc. Bill mitchell's ideas are best. Let's be bold.

Kaivey said...

Libertarian freedom is not freedom at all, it's enslavement. Everyone is free to do as they please, then the bandits seize control and the warlords rule.

Kaivey said...

In the book The Private Abuse of the Public Interest, the authors Lawrence D Brown and Lawrence R Jacobs produce the figures which shows that when services are privatised they cost the public 2 to 3 times more. The only success was the airlines, which significantly lowered costs, but the service was bad. And many airlines started asking the government for more regulations so they could ends the cutthroat business and start to make a profit.

The conclusion the authors drew was that the private sector was okay when people could really see what they were getting, like cans of beans, cars, and Hi-Fi's, etc. And even then people are often fiddled but at least it is not life threatening. What about all the cars where the emissions tests had been fiddled?

When it comes to pensions and health services it is best to stick with the public. In the UK many people have lost their life savings with some private pensions. They're are so many fiddles and hidden charges that most pensions are at breaking point and so fund managers are gambling them in high risk investments to try to get the returns back.


In the UK the Conservative Government tried to make pensions more visible so that people could see the hidden costs clearly. But the City of London staged a revolt and the Conservative Government backed down.

intajake said...

Huh I might get that book.

France and local govt in Germany still own large proportions of their car industry-Peugeot ,Volkswagen and they are competitive (Volkswagen showed that it is still prone to issues like emission scandal)

intajake said...

Huh I might get that book.

France and local govt in Germany still own large proportions of their car industry-Peugeot ,Volkswagen and they are competitive (Volkswagen showed that it is still prone to issues like emission scandal)

intajake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob said...

We don't have democracy, so no worries.