A Little Too Early 2028 Presidential Election Thread

[tooblue]

Mike Duncan (podcaster/pop historian, nothing close to as intensive as Dan Carlin) being promoted by government bureaucrats at the Smithsonian? Must mean it's academically sound! Speaking of fallacious arguments, kind of sounds like an argument from authority.

So, wait, the bureaucrats at the Smithsonian promote a historian and thus anything shared by said historian is or is not academically sound—but he's a historian? lol ... any supposed appeal to authority started (and continues) with your questioning the authority in the first place, by the labeling anything "pop history" ...



I get it—this is a challenging time. The republic is in trouble. If only there were specific historical examples from which we could draw interesting comparisons?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Economic inequality was a significant factor in the collapse of Rome.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ons-180967249/

"I jokingly said when I started writing, that I wanted people to come out of it with a general feeling of unease about what’s going on in the United States and in the West generally. To emerge from reading the book, go back to flipping on the news, and think, “This is not good.” Whatever your political persuasion, I think we can all agree that politics in the United States is becoming fairly toxic and if we’re not careful we can wind up going the way of the Roman Republic. In history, we often go from shouting at each other to shooting each other—or in the olden days stabbing each other with swords.

I hope they read it as an example of a time in history when people didn’t pay attention to a lot of warning signs. If you ignore it, you risk the whole thing collapsing into civil war and a military dictatorship. I would like to avoid this. If people say, “Maybe this is starting to look like the beginning of the end,” then maybe we can do some things to avoid the fate of the Roman Republic."

The causes of the collapse of the empire are complex and one the most debated historical issues. Drawing parallels between Rome and modern US are a massive stretch, but I can see why that thinking appeals to some people. One of the examples in the article is the rise of Amazon and the collapse of small independent bookstores. Any of you want to give up the ease and low cost of online shopping? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Also, one of the reasons the reasons the Roman empire was so successful for so long is that when they conquered a region, they instituted law and order, improved the infrastructure, and integrated the locals with a broad trade network. As a result, the standard of living always went way up. Hurray for capitalism.

And if we are going to pontificate about "those who fail to learn the lessons of history..." when it comes to wealth inequality, there is no need to go all the way back to Roman times. More recently we have the Bolshevik revolution, communism era in China, the Cuban revolution, etc. How did all that work out?

[Moliere]

There's probably a post here where I say something like the existence of billionaires is a failure of society or something proletariat like that. While I still believe that income inequality is the root of a lot of societal ills, I'm nowhere near advocating taking all their wealth and redistributing it. They drive a lot of our economy. But their presence isn't an unalloyed good. Your reply didn't touch on my original intent, that their political donations and activism shouldn't just be accepted without scrutiny. The world they live in certainly doesn't resemble ours, and what's important to them politically may or may not align with the majority of the population. They aren't going away, but their influence in society should be constantly scrutinized.

i don’t disagree with this. They should be scrutinized and not have an outsized influence on most things. We do struggle to find that right balance but when you go overboard, like California, billionaires can just move somewhere else a take their capital with them. Texas and Florida are flourishing because of that.

[tooblue]

The causes of the collapse of the empire are complex and one the most debated historical issues. Drawing parallels between Rome and modern US are a massive stretch, but I can see why that thinking appeals to some people. One of the examples in the article is the rise of Amazon and the collapse of small independent bookstores. Any of you want to give up the ease and low cost of online shopping? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Also, one of the reasons the reasons the Roman empire was so successful for so long is that when they conquered a region, they instituted law and order, improved the infrastructure, and integrated the locals with a broad trade network. As a result, the standard of living always went way up. Hurray for capitalism.

And if we are going to pontificate about "those who fail to learn the lessons of history..." when it comes to wealth inequality, there is no need to go all the way back to Roman times. More recently we have the Bolshevik revolution, communism era in China, the Cuban revolution, etc. How did all that work out?

Of course the causes were complex. No, drawing parallels is not a massive stretch, and it is not a mere matter of appeal. The history is the history and is well documented—it is not some nebulous thingy that is ineffable. "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history" is a paraphrased misquote. The original quote, which I posted below, applies to concepts of human nature and is introspective in its focus.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course the causes were complex. No, drawing parallels is not a massive stretch, and it is not a mere matter of appeal. The history is the history and is well documented—it is not some nebulous thingy that is ineffable. "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history" is a paraphrased misquote. The original quote, which I posted below, applies to concepts of human nature and is introspective in its focus.

Oh believe me, I am a firm believer in the quote. I think of it all the time when I see depressing stats about how popular socialism and wealth redistribution are among young Americans. And when I see the NY mayor rhapsodize about "the warmth of collectivism" or that dumb new mayor of Seattle doing stuff like this:

Embedded Tweet

[BigPiney]

Embedded Tweet

that's funny. "Private business, you can't close."

[Copelius]

Oh believe me, I am a firm believer in the quote. I think of it all the time when I see depressing stats about how popular socialism and wealth redistribution are among young Americans. And when I see the NY mayor rhapsodize about "the warmth of collectivism" or that dumb new mayor of Seattle doing stuff like this:

Embedded Tweet

I don't think she has thought this through:

The Plan: If a private business tries to leave due to theft, taxes, or safety concerns... the government will step in. Her allies in the state legislature have even introduced a bill (HB-2313) allowing the city to use Eminent Domain to SEIZE grocery store properties and turn them into government-run shops.

While she may be able to use eminent domain to seize the stores, she does realize that eminent domain is just a way to force the store to sell to her, which allows the chain to leave and get paid to do so. Also, without the chain's supply contracts, the seized stores will quickly run out of that basic human right. Is she going to seize the distribution centers too? What about the ones outside city limits? What about a distribution center that services two cities? Which city gets to have it?

[PaloAltoCougar]

that's funny. "Private business, you can't close."

".... because the same type of people who run the DMV will be awesome at running a business with one of the smallest profit margins of any industry."

[Northwestcoug]

Oh believe me, I am a firm believer in the quote. I think of it all the time when I see depressing stats about how popular socialism and wealth redistribution are among young Americans. And when I see the NY mayor rhapsodize about "the warmth of collectivism" or that dumb new mayor of Seattle doing stuff like this:

Embedded Tweet

that sounds a little too juicy to be true, and it probably is. I watched this snippet of her press conference:

https://news.grabien.com/story/socia...grocery-chains

She does decry when chains leave communities, but here she's proposing public option grocery stores as a solution. This article talks more about it:

https://www.theburnerseattle.com/pos...rate-greed-ind

I don't see anywhere where she's talking about forcibly keeping stores open. Her government run option of grocery stores is still socialisty, just not the hard core type.

Am I missing a verified plan to force stores to stay open?

[Jeff Lebowski]

that sounds a little too juicy to be true, and it probably is. I watched this snippet of her press conference:

https://news.grabien.com/story/socia...grocery-chains

She does decry when chains leave communities, but here she's proposing public option grocery stores as a solution. This article talks more about it:

https://www.theburnerseattle.com/pos...rate-greed-ind

I don't see anywhere where she's talking about forcibly keeping stores open. Her government run option of grocery stores is still socialisty, just not the hard core type.

Am I missing a verified plan to force stores to stay open?

This is a literal quote from your first link:

“Access to affordable, healthy food is a basic right. We cannot allow giant grocery chains to stomp all over our communities, close stores at will, and leave behind food deserts. Together we can build a Seattle where fresh food is for everyone, not just for those who can afford it.”

The article in your second quote is funny:

“These aren’t food deserts, these are food foreclosures,” said UFCW 3000 Secretary-Tresurer Joe Mizrahi in front of the Lake City Way Fred Meyer, so busy he had to fight for a parking spot, that Kroger plans to shutter.

Mizrahi explained that the corporation wants Seattleites to buy their tightly spun narrative that they have to close up shop because of theft, but the union cites greed as a primary motivator. Kroger plans to close the stores in lower income neighborhoods and then open new ones in more affluent neighborhoods where they can hoard even more wealth in the C-Suite.

Fight on, comrade!

The mayor should work to fix the urban decay which the fundamental issue here, rather that fiddling with the symptoms.

My son lived in Seattle for 7 years. A lot of wonderful things about the city, but it definitely has problems.

[Northwestcoug]

This is a literal quote from your first link:



The article in your second quote is funny:



Fight on, comrade!

The mayor should work to fix the urban decay which the fundamental issue here, rather that fiddling with the symptoms.

My son lived in Seattle for 7 years. A lot of wonderful things about the city, but it definitely has problems.

I'm not arguing about the feasibility of her plan nor its merits. I'm responding to the text in the tweet you posted. It says "she will unilaterally BAN grocery stores from closing in her city". She's saying nothing of the sort; she's advocating for publicly owned options, not making existing store closing illegal.

My daughter lives in Seattle. I enjoy a lot about the city, not the traffic. And yeah, there's problems.

[Moliere]

I'm not arguing about the feasibility of her plan nor its merits. I'm responding to the text in the tweet you posted. It says "she will unilaterally BAN grocery stores from closing in her city". She's saying nothing of the sort; she's advocating for publicly owned options, not making existing store closing illegal.

My daughter lives in Seattle. I enjoy a lot about the city, not the traffic. And yeah, there's problems.

Publicly owned, meaning government owned and government ran. In other words, government subsidized since there’s no way they’ll turn a profit.

[All-American]

Economic inequality was a significant factor in the collapse of Rome.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ons-180967249/

"I jokingly said when I started writing, that I wanted people to come out of it with a general feeling of unease about what’s going on in the United States and in the West generally. To emerge from reading the book, go back to flipping on the news, and think, “This is not good.” Whatever your political persuasion, I think we can all agree that politics in the United States is becoming fairly toxic and if we’re not careful we can wind up going the way of the Roman Republic. In history, we often go from shouting at each other to shooting each other—or in the olden days stabbing each other with swords.

I hope they read it as an example of a time in history when people didn’t pay attention to a lot of warning signs. If you ignore it, you risk the whole thing collapsing into civil war and a military dictatorship. I would like to avoid this. If people say, “Maybe this is starting to look like the beginning of the end,” then maybe we can do some things to avoid the fate of the Roman Republic."

Let’s get some things straight.

First, the article isn’t talking about the collapse of Rome. It is talking about the period covering the late republic to early empire. At the end of this period, Rome had another 300 to 400 years to go, depending on how you measure it, and some would say that it’s best days (e.g., the reign of the good emperors) were still ahead of it.

Second, income inequality existed before this period. It also existed after this period. In fact, the most unequal period was arguably the best period—again, the good emperors. You can lament income inequality, but you still have to grapple with the curious correlation between inequality and broad prosperity.

If you do want to talk about the fall of Rome, including the empire, you can basically pick your pet cause and argue that this is what it was all along. Everybody gets their piece in: immigration, over-industrialization, climate change, inflation, Christianity, you name it. Be suspicious of anyone who picks a cause and says that this, above all else, is what caused the collapse of Rome.

[Jeff Lebowski]

We need a mic drop emoji.

[Clark Addison]

Let’s get some things straight.

First, the article isn’t talking about the collapse of Rome. It is talking about the period covering the late republic to early empire. At the end of this period, Rome had another 300 to 400 years to go, depending on how you measure it, and some would say that it’s best days (e.g., the reign of the good emperors) were still ahead of it.

Second, income inequality existed before this period. It also existed after this period. In fact, the most unequal period was arguably the best period—again, the good emperors. You can lament income inequality, but you still have to grapple with the curious correlation between inequality and broad prosperity.

If you do want to talk about the fall of Rome, including the empire, you can basically pick your pet cause and argue that this is what it was all along. Everybody gets their piece in: immigration, over-industrialization, climate change, inflation, Christianity, you name it. Be suspicious of anyone who picks a cause and says that this, above all else, is what caused the collapse of Rome.

Actually it was homosexuality.

Or was that Greece? I need to find my old YM advisors.