Today I got told that I am the...

[Dauphin]

Look, if our goal is to win some dick-measuring competition with other countries, we should just build a life-sized model of my ****.

Unfortunately, small in this instance means loser.

[Kuciwalker]

Precisely why curtis was hesitant to offer his own.

[Dauphin]

Although a terrible comeback, I must still applaud.

[Dauphin]

<--- Curious as to what this portends, as he's had his face buried in hogans that are quite real...

Not a problem either way. A convincing, permanent and happy illusion is better than an unhappy truth.

[curtis290]

Fascist, then. Fascists suck. Not as much as Nazis do, but that's setting the bar pretty low, innit? You can kindly take your delusions of "making our mark on history" and "being a great nation" via spending EVEN MORE than we already do on the military (~95% of global military expenditure, or so I hear) and shove 'em.

Why, because they're not liberal? Most governments in history were not liberal. Specifics on your claim would be nice, and we've been discussing this in other threads. Franco's regime sure lasted a lot longer than the Spanish Second Republic, and Salazar's lasted much longer than the Portugese First Republic. Italy in the 1920's and 1930's was certainly more effectively governed than the Kingdom of Italy, and Mussolini saved Italy from the forces of anarchy and socialism, which the liberal government would have been unable to prevent. The Austrian Republic of the 20s and 1930s was completely ineffective, and had Dollfuss and Schuschnigg been given a chance, they could have righted the ship. Horthy saved Hungary from communism. Antonescu, although he participated in the Holocaust due to the alliance with the Axis forced upon, essentially created the modern Romanian state: Romania would not exist today if it were not for him. The Second Polish Republic was a highly successful regime that kept Poland stable and as advanced as the nations in Western Europe.

Videla and Viola stabilized Argentina and were a big improvement from Isabel Peron's government. Juan Domingo Peron was considered a fascist by many liberal Americans and was Argentina's most important leader. Vargas was probably the most important leader in Brazil's history, and the Estado Novo was a very important stage for Brazil when it was able to modernize with stability and without the threat of communist revolution. To make a huge generalization such as "fascists suck" (whoever fascists are) is simply bad history and a product of looking at the past through the lens of oversimplified political science.[/QUOTE]

Also, my desk job is moderately intellectually stimulating and I wouldn't trade it for factory or farm work even if those paid more.

OK, I'm glad your job is that way, but most people I know working desk jobs are pretty dissatisfied with their jobs. I saw a poll in a book the other day (before the crisis) that showed that most Americans work just hard enough not to get fired and don't hate their job quite enough to quit. That's been my experience in talking with white collar workers. Anyways, I would say that's because you're used to it: had you grown up as a farmhand, you wouldn't want it any other way. You'd want to be in wide open spaces doing work that's meaningful, not sitting inside an office and pushing paper for your boss. Anyways, I never said I wanted everyone on farms, I just said that if I were a ruler there would be a lot more employment in agriculture, more in industry, and less in the financial sector (which of course would be tightly controlled and would have the sole purpose of serving main street and not itself)[/QUOTE]

Umm, I'm pretty sure most people spend more on food than they do on insurance. I know I do, and I rarely eat out.

I was responding to KH's claim that the labor of people in insurance is more important and more highly valued than that of farmers, since we pay the people in insurance more. I strongly disagree with that, the value of someone's work is not determined solely by his salary or the price of the product he sells, it is determined by the service he provides to society, and by the inherent value of his product. Food is more important than insurance.

Your narrative doesn't really have much connection to reality. Not that such things bother an ideological crusader, but it's not terribly convincing to people who can think.

-Arrian

In other words, my narrative has no connection to reality because I don't agree with you.

[Kuciwalker]

You'd want to be in wide open spaces doing work that's meaningful, not sitting inside an office and pushing paper for your boss.

You've never explained why growing crops is 'meaningful' (particularly, crops we don't need, given that with only 3% of our population working in agriculture we are a net food exporter). You also never explained why "pushing paper" (which isn't what Arrian does and isn't what I do) isn't meaningful.

[Kuciwalker]

You know what's even more important than food, curtis? Oxygen! So if I build a machine that produces more oxygen, I will be providing an extraordinarily valuable service to society.

[Solomwi]

Anyways, I never said I wanted everyone on farms, I just said that if I were a ruler there would be a lot more employment in agriculture, more in industry, and less in the financial sector (which of course would be tightly controlled and would have the sole purpose of serving main street and not itself)

[Barnabas]

Agriculture is valuable because you don't need to be extremely smart to be a farmer, and it can be very labour intensive if you don't use modern machines.
China and Vietnam, who deal with the problem of lots of poor peasants moving to the city, subsidize their deliberately non modern agriculture in order to keep millions of its inhabitants working on farms and preventing the creation of a large urban shanty townish lumpenproletarian class. It is just a protecting social order thing.

BTW, I swear I am not Curtis, in fact he is very wrong with regards to Argentina. The military junta of the 70's was the worst government Argentia ever had, and Argentina was much more similar to a first world country before Perón.

[curtis290]

You'd want to be in wide open spaces doing work that's meaningful, not sitting inside an office and pushing paper for your boss.

You've never explained why growing crops is 'meaningful' (particularly, crops we don't need, given that with only 3% of our population working in agriculture we are a net food exporter). You also never explained why "pushing paper" (which isn't what Arrian does and isn't what I do) isn't meaningful.

There's a pride that comes from working off of the land, it's something that you wouldn't understand. There's also the fact that this country was built on the small farmer, the yeoman. Additionally, it's because you're giving people food...something they NEED. You're not filling out paperwork for your boss so he can make money off of other peoples' money. Even though people in the white collar work force earn much more, they aren't more satisfied with their jobs than the farmers and factory workers. This is an observation I've made since I've been at several schools with different socioeconomic populations. I can say from experience that the farmers' kids aren't less happy than the wealthy kids I went to my private high school with. If anything, the kids at the private high school more MORE f*cked up and unhappy. Their lives were needlessly complicated, and since they were spoiled and had no economic problems as kids, nothing was put into perspective. Not to mention they were so into their careers and making money in the future that they couldn't live in the present, and they worshipped the God of success instead of their true God.

You know what's even more important than food, curtis? Oxygen! So if I build a machine that produces more oxygen, I will be providing an extraordinarily valuable service to society.

Yeah, what a great analogy. Anyways, if we lived another planet or moon where oxygen had to be produced on some sort of oxygen farm, than yes, the oxygen farmers would be more important than the bankers.

Not an argument.

Agriculture is valuable because you don't need to be extremely smart to be a farmer, and it can be very labour intensive if you don't use modern machines.
China and Vietnam, who deal with the problem of lots of poor peasants moving to the city, subsidize their deliberately non modern agriculture in order to keep millions of its inhabitants working on farms and preventing the creation of a large urban shanty townish lumpenproletarian class. It is just a protecting social order thing.

Thank you. This is basically what I've been getting at. Farming in the US is extremely consolidated in the hands of a few larger corporate farms, partially because small farmers can't afford all of the technology. What I am calling for is economic policy that would encourage the breakup of these corporate farms and for many people to have small farms. Of course it wouldn't be as efficient this way, the technology would be more primitive since the small farmers couldn't afford the fancy equipment. However, with a strengthened industrial sector, hopefully more equipment could be provided to these small farms. Of course such a system would be less 'efficient' economically in terms of maximizing short term economic growth, but it would mean higher levels of employment (very important for stability and for the good of the people), less people in the cities, and more people engaged in meaningful work.

BTW, I swear I am not Curtis, in fact he is very wrong with regards to Argentina. The military junta of the 70's was the worst government Argentia ever had, and Argentina was much more similar to a first world country before Perón.

You think the military junta of 76-83 was worse than Isabel Peron's government? Second, how can you say Argentina was first world before Peron? Peron completely modernized it and launched Argentina into first world status...back in the 1920s and 1930s, Argentina was still very poor. Peron modernized Argentina quickly and was able to do so while maintaining stability and preventing a socialist revolution. Argentina, out of all of the Latin American countries, probably had the weakest communist and socialist movements.

Thank you, Barnabas, for remaining objective and not blindly attacking everything I say just because my viewpoints are unorthodox.

[Kuciwalker]

There's a pride that comes from working off of the land, it's something that you wouldn't understand.

Yipee. People who take pride in working off of the land are already free to become farmers. Those of us who don't would appreciate it if you didn't try to make us.

There's also the fact that this country was built on the small farmer, the yeoman.

Also slavery!

Additionally, it's because you're giving people food...something they NEED.

People already have food. Almost no one in the entire country is actually in need of additional food - and we wouldn't actually need to grow any more food in order to feed them, as we have a massive surplus.

You're not filling out paperwork for your boss so he can make money off of other peoples' money.

You have this utterly bizarre conception that "white collar work" involves rotely filling out forms and mailing them off somewhere. I spend 90% of my day writing computer programs, as does pretty much everyone else at my office.

And if the forms do need to be filled out to achieve some ultimately worthy end (say, being able to provide a pension to a bunch of retirees) then that seems just as 'meaningful' as growing food that people don't really need.

Even though people in the white collar work force earn much more, they aren't more satisfied with their jobs than the farmers and factory workers. This is an observation I've made since I've been at several schools with different socioeconomic populations. I can say from experience that the farmers' kids aren't less happy than the wealthy kids I went to my private high school with. If anything, the kids at the private high school more MORE f*cked up and unhappy. Their lives were needlessly complicated, and since they were spoiled and had no economic problems as kids, nothing was put into perspective. Not to mention they were so into their careers and making money in the future that they couldn't live in the present, and they worshipped the God of success instead of their true God.

Anecdotes ahoy! Data please.

Yeah, what a great analogy. Anyways, if we lived another planet or moon where oxygen had to be produced on some sort of oxygen farm, than yes, the oxygen farmers would be more important than the bankers.

i.e. since oxygen is widely and cheaply available (it's free, in fact!) producing it isn't very valuable? Well, it turns out that in the good old US of A, food is widely and cheaply available...

Thank you. This is basically what I've been getting at.

You think the US has a large peasant population that we can only keep suppressed by forcing them into unmechanized farm labor?

Um... where?

Of course such a system would be less 'efficient' economically in terms of maximizing short term economic growth, but it would mean higher levels of employment (very important for stability and for the good of the people)

Excuse me, when was the last time civil unrest was a genuine threat to America's stability? 1860? Does that even count?

and more people engaged in meaningful work.

This canard again.

Thank you, Barnabas, for remaining objective and not blindly attacking everything I say just because my viewpoints are unorthodox.

I don't blindly attack everything you say just because your viewpoints are unorthodox. I meticulously attack everything you say because your viewpoints are insane.

[Barnabas]

What I wrote does not apply to a country like the USA, it applies only to countries which are facing now mass migrations of peasants towards their cities.
Perhaps I should have read the last pages, why would you want Americans to become farmers??
If you think it is intrinsically better than being a dentist then that is just romanticism

[Elok]

I'd say it's more "pastoral crypto-fascism."

[Solomwi]

Pastoral crypto-fascism specializing in gender would be awesome.

[KrazyHorse]