Capitalist ParadiseBoard

Is better the Communism or the Monarchism?

The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid wrote:

If i understand this question correctly, neither. Both of them have problems.

One is anachronistic, and the other is a new age take on new boss same as the old boss.

If I may change the subject, and point out a key problem with democracy that is often overlooked, its dynamic is a snake eating its own tail.
Its elder forms were not that democratic by modern standards, and yet the purer it gets the less democratic it becomes as well.

This is where I think the US got it right in experimenting with republicanism.
The ancients did not do the greatest job with it, but I believe American refinements made the Republic the perfect fulcrum on which to balance democracy on so as to create a system that could be as balanced between autocracy and mobocracy as possible.

Our problem now is maintaining the balance.
That takes constant vigilance, and we have fallen asleep at the switch all too often I fear.

Gulf Oil wrote:

The Russian strategy has been somewhat puzzling. Obviously, the initial attempt was a lightening thrust to duplicate the quick victory in Crimea, while preserving most of the Ukrainian infrastructure. When that failed, the Cruise missiles and stand-off weapons should have been deployed to eliminate Ukrainian radar and air defense facilities. With air defenses eliminated, heavy bombers could have been used to carpet-bomb Ukrainian strong points and to decimate the command and control network. With air superiority established it would be easy to disrupt the supply lines from NATO. Why the Russians have decided to advance at a snail’s pace without air superiority is very mysterious.

Because they've been unable to establish air superiority. The Russians are very disorganized in general. Just watch them drive! That's why they can't produce anything (complex) that anybody wants to buy. That's why they've always fought so poorly. Their air force sucks. They train with just individual planes or pairs, two pairs at most. They have no idea how to organize a carefully choreographed operation of hundreds of planes of different types necessary to destroy the (much weaker) enemy air force and air defense. Better organization has always been the West's biggest advantage against the East ever since the Greco-Persian wars. And Russia is "East" for all practical purposes. Though the Ukrainians have pleasantly surprised be by turning out to be more "West" than "East" (as I had feared). And as blitzkrieg is impossible without air superiority, the Russians just fight WWI.

Informed consent wrote:

They barely have the fuel to prosecute their ground campaign which has been stutter stepped by the inconsistent line of that supply.
Naval and air action are even more costly, a comprehensive air campaign was never going to be logistically possible after fueling the initial moves from Belarus and the Black Sea.
Russia is moving Pacific forces to augment Sevastopol, and while most ships of the line and subs will be nuclear powered, even basic naval aviation for combat air patrols is fuel intensive.
Which is why they are limiting deployment to mostly missile cruisers and destroyers along with the landing ships.

Meanwhile, an additional aircraft carrier has been dispatched to the Mediterranean by the US.
With Biden draining our own strategic reserves in a vain attempt to cap rising fuel costs at home, I worry about our own long term naval effectiveness.

You realize that we produce more oil than we consume, don't you?

Midlands wrote:

You realize that we produce more oil than we consume, don't you?

Traditionally, yes, but current policy has dammed the flow.
Reserves are at the lowest they have ever been, and are not replenishing at a significant rate.

We are supposed to be transitioning to all electric vehicles by 2030, remember?
Diesel production for freighters, freight trains, and commercial vehicles has already been significantly reduced.
Our supply problems are not going to be improving anytime soon.

Nuclear and fossil power plants are both being retired faster than new green farms are coming on line that do not have the ability to generate the wattage being lost in the first place.

We are in for a literal dark age soon.

Midlands wrote:

No, not traditionally. Only starting with the Obama presidency. And production is actually increasing now.

Nope.
Gains from both Obama and Trump administrations regarding energy have come full stop as Biden's has about faced previous policies to accommodate the progressive 2030 plans for the green reformation of transportation and power grid.
Including an expansion of federal land ownership combined with the cessation of all resource exploitation on it.

Midlands wrote:

No, they have not. Just look at statistics.

I am, I live it, I have no choice but to see what is coming down the pike.
We are fully immersed in the ESG economy now.
Practical considerations no longer matter.
From now on, for the US and EU, everything "bad" for social and environmental justice is getting phased out by 2030-50 including private ownership, and when we switch to a programmable digital currency soon, our grocery lists will be decided for us.

Informed consent wrote:

I am, I live it, I have no choice but to see what is coming down the pike.
We are fully immersed in the ESG economy now.
Practical considerations no longer matter.
From now on, for the US and EU, everything "bad" for social and environmental justice is getting phased out by 2030-50 including private ownership, and when we switch to a programmable digital currency soon, our grocery lists will be decided for us.

Sadly, I agree. This is what will be coming.

Midlands wrote:

That's a fantasy.

Really?

https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/environmental-social-and-governance-esg-funds-investor-bulletin

https://www.gibsondunn.com/blackrock-vanguard-and-state-street-update-corporate-governance-and-esg-policies-and-priorities-for-2022/

https://riabiz.com/a/2021/7/28/suddenly-vanguard-blackrock-state-street-not-only-have-the-assets-but-the-power-of-esg-mandates-which-make-them-a-growing-threat-to-shareholder-democracy-critics-say

The assault on democracy has been two prong.
In democratic capitalism, how and where you spend your money is as societally informative as voting at polls, and in some ways more powerful.
Progressives have been wrestling with that problem for a century, and in recent decades finally began putting together an answer to it.

Welcome to the new age where you will only be able to put your money where their morals are, and as such, how you vote will make even less difference than it does now.
The ultimate refinement of fascism.
Enjoy.

Meanwhile in my neck of the woods, we are already seeing further attempted incursion by regulatory bodies not yet officially authorized to establish new fiefdoms of control on how local farmers administrate their land, crops, and herds that will continue to regulate us out of existence, which has been a fact of this lifestyle for as long as I have been in it.
Unfortunately we underestimated corporate food production's collusion in trying to phase out smaller operators and growers.
Even in Alabama where our awareness and pushback is keener and stronger than average, our little Cessnas are still being pushed backward in the jet stream.

Gulf Oil wrote:

A more practical concern about depleting the strategic oil reserve is that replacing it will require purchase of oil at inflated prices. But I suppose that the cost is not a concern for government apparatchiks spending other people’s tax dollars.

No it will not.
Part of the traditional math depending upon the politics and personalities involved since the founding of the Kingdom around US and British oil interests in 1932 has been the ratio of domestic production to foreign purchase.
That ratio has never been consistent, particularly in the era of the petrodollar simultaneously infected by the environmental concerns of pro-scarcity Marxists and Malthusians hoping to permanently destroy the possible establishment of a world wide prosperous middle-class by capitalist means.
Now a very mature and independent minded Kingdom wants to throw off the USD as the global petrocurrency, and China hopes to advance that position, but the CCP despite western pompous apologetic coverage of its economic performance is saddled with many of the same failings as the US is currently experiencing in just maintaining a status quo.
Despite recent political and natural short circuits, the math that we all answer to regardless of methodology is making margin calls on years of excessive currency printing by both the CCP and US which is what is actually the primary driver of our current inflation concerns.

So while the US is in real danger of losing its petrocurrency status, no one else is any better shape to assume and maintain it.
Bye bye global economy.

Circling back to your point, for the first time since the 1970s the US is faced with a circumstance where it cannot adjust that production/purchase ratio to compensate, because it is dismantling one part of it, while intransigent foreign interests have hijacked the other.
Welcome to Petro-roulette.
Didi mao, one more bullet!

Deflation is good.

Petrolian wrote:

Deflation is good.

Deflation is good if saving for the future because the money in savings gains value. It is also good for pensioners and those living on a fixed income.

On the other hand, inflation is good for people in debt, because they are paying off loans with worthless currency. Inflation is also good for governments paying retirees from mandated pension plans such as Social Security, because the citizens pay valuable cash into the system, but receive devalued money upon retirement.