Reich lectures on "America First"

[JimC]

Is he the fifth Reich?

[Brian Peacock]

Whenever I hear the word "art" I reach for my Luger.

Born in North Dakota on the Standing Rock Reservation, artist Cannupa Hanska Luger comes from Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Lakota, Austrian, and Norwegian descent. Luger's unique, ceramic­-centric, but ultimately multidisciplinary work tells provocative stories of complex Indigenous identities coming up against 21st Century imperatives, mediation, and destructivity. Luger creates socially conscious work that hybridizes his identity as an American Indian in tandem with global issues. Using his art as a catalyst, he invites the public to challenge expectations and misinterpretations imposed upon Indigenous peoples by historical and contemporary colonial social structures....

http://www.cannupahanska.com/biography/

[JimC]

I nearly inherited a real Luger I could reach for (if I was getting a little Sethian...). Dad served in the Middle East during WW2, and bought a German officer's Luger at an Arab market (probably originally looted from a dead body, one presumes...). He brought it home with him, and showed me it when I was a lad. But there was a gun amnesty at some stage, and he handed it in.... I don't think he had any ammo for it, in any case...

[laklak]

Is he the fifth Reich?

Wilhelm Reich?

[pErvinalia]

Why do you think 'investing' is the wrong wrong to use there?

Well, first, the semantic word choice is a secondary issue, not the one I was focusing on, which was what Reich was saying makes companies more competitive when they work in higher tax, higher wage/benefit, stricter regulatory environment, countries.

But, the question posed is why is "investing" the wrong word? Because it's a euphemism designed to make "spending" seem more attractive. It's like saying I have to "invest" in a new car to get me back and forth to work. It certainly has the benefit of being transportation so that I can make money, which I'd not be able to make if I didn't have the car. However, it is not an "investment." It's an "expense." I need to purchase or spend money on a new car, I don't "invest" in a new car. I have to buy an insurance policy to cover the car, and an insurance policy to cover my health risks, but I don't "invest" in them. I pay for them. I purchase them. It's not an investment.

It's an investment if it you get greater returns than what you put in. All investments are expenses at some point. This is a red herring.

[pErvinalia]

But, the question posed is why is "investing" the wrong word? Because it's a euphemism designed to make "spending" seem more attractive. It's like saying I have to "invest" in a new car to get me back and forth to work. It certainly has the benefit of being transportation so that I can make money, which I'd not be able to make if I didn't have the car. However, it is not an "investment." It's an "expense." I need to purchase or spend money on a new car, I don't "invest" in a new car.

Actually, an expense incurred for the purpose of generating an income is called investment. That's the definition.

Three of us have now pointed this out to him. I can't wait to hear his further equivocation. We're going to get pages and pages of him torturing the English language trying to wiggle out of the fact that he is wrong.

[Hermit]

We're going to get pages and pages of him torturing the English language trying to wiggle out of the fact that he is wrong.

42 can be accused of several offences. Torturing the English language is not one of them. He expresses his gobbledegook very well as far as grammar syntax and vocabulary are concerned.

[rainbow]

What we need to get the parts suppliers back to the US is to raise taxes, increase wages/benefits, and strengthen unions in the workplace, and then the parts suppliers will move from overseas to the US, or American based companies will be better able to build aircraft parts. Sounds ironclad.

That is one of the dumbest things you've ever written here.

It's not what I said, it's what Reich said.

You've either failed to understand what he said, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what he said.

Charitably, I put it down to stupidity rather than dishonesty.

Was I wrong?

[pErvinalia]

We're going to get pages and pages of him torturing the English language trying to wiggle out of the fact that he is wrong.

42 can be accused of several offences. Torturing the English language is not one of them.

You've got be fucking kidding! I've never seen anyone (other than Mr Samsa in one spectacular debate) misinterprate words and equivocate as much as him. He's off the fucking charts!

He expresses his gobbledegook very well as far as grammar syntax and vocabulary are concerned.

[Hermit]

misinterprate

42's misinterpretations and equivocations do not torture the English language.

[pErvinalia]

Oh ffs. This cunting phone. It offers up previous misspellings that I've made. I thought that looked a bit wrong.

[Hermit]

Oh ffs. This cunting phone. It offers up previous misspellings that I've made. I thought that looked a bit wrong.

Yeah. Sure. Autocomplete is notorious for suggesting words that don't even exist. For that very reason I switch it off every time I get a new phone. One downside, of course, is that then I can no longer blame my own misspellings on something else.

[pErvinalia]

No autocorrect system can be worse at spelling than my natural state.

[Brian Peacock]

The argument against Reich's suggestion is that things like reasonable wages, job security, a firm and fair set of labour regulations, progressive tax arrangements, and well-funded public services etc may be present in economies which do relatively well in comparative terms, but they are not themselves causal factors that positively influence an economy - and to say otherwise is to fall for the old fallacy of conflating correlation with causation. Thus, it is said, instituting structural reforms to towards those kinds of systems is actually economically threatening and socially undesirable because a system over-burdened with employment regulations, tax laws, and public service obligations necessarily, unduly and disproportionately limits the freedom of so-called 'wealth creators' to, you know, create the wealth in which we all share and on which we all depend: namely, business profits.

Of course the same argument is often made the other way, that just because economies dependent on low-waged, lightly regulated, low-grade jobs, with high levels of job insecurity, regressive taxation systems, and poorly provided for public services perform relatively poorly in comparative terms these things are not themselves causal factors that negatively influence an economy. Thus, it is said, instituting structural reforms to secure and expand those kinds of systems--reforms towards even lower wages, lower levels of taxation, lighter regulations, and fewer public services etc--necessarily, duly, and proportionately enhances the freedom of wealth-creators to, you know, create the wealth on which we all depend, and in so doing boost economic performance and enhance society.

The difference between those who are, shall we say, classically economically conservative and those who are classically economically liberal is that the conservatives think that both paragraphs above are true while liberals are happy to acknowledge the circular nature of the arguments.

[Forty Two]

We're going to get pages and pages of him torturing the English language trying to wiggle out of the fact that he is wrong.

42 can be accused of several offences. Torturing the English language is not one of them. He expresses his gobbledegook very well as far as grammar syntax and vocabulary are concerned.

I express my difficult to understand circumlocution and obscure jargon very well? Why thank you!