Desmond Morris On the Future of America

[Valjean]

"Held in check" is the problem. Yes, we will eventually hold Facebook
and Google in check. Under Marxism these corporations wouldn't exist.
Marxism tolerates no power but its own - the ultimate Corporation that
even has the power to kill you.

But who's going to hold the Koch brothers in check?

 

[BSM1]

And that social mobility has been steadily decreasing as America became more capitalist. We used to be the land of opportunity, when we were a Rooseveltian (?) social democracy. After Reagan switched our economy from Keynesian to Neo-liberal "trickle down," wages have been largely stagnant, while the cost-of-living has risen steadily, along with the costs of healthcare and education.
America today has more income inequality and less social mobility than it's had since the '20s; less than many European economies.

This is obviously a matter of perception as opposed to fact. There are opportunities around every corner, However, if you think you're going to set the world's largest internet store, than of course you'll disappointed.

 

[Valjean]

This is obviously a matter of perception as opposed to fact. There are opportunities around every corner, However, if you think you're going to set the world's largest internet store, than of course you'll disappointed.

Not my perception. Economic fact. Google.

There are not opportunities around every corner, certainly not opportunities with a living wage.

 

[joe1776]

It's not moral decline that's the problem. The problem is Neo-Liberalism, imperialism and oligarchy. The alpha males are hoarding all the bananas and repressing the other chimps.
Freedom and democracy is decreasing in the world; authoritarianism increasing. The uncertain future of democracy

In governing, democracies are better than dictatorships but they are still lousy ways to select the people who will make decisions.

An efficient government decision-making system will satisfy these four criteria:

1) It will maximize the intelligence of the decision-makers;
2) It will maximize the training and experience of the decision-makers;
3) It will maximize the trust of the citizenry;
4) It will minimize the chances of a bias that sends the decision off course.

Democracies satisfy none of these criteria. I think the world is at the point where this problem is being recognized but, as yet, we don't have a solution on the table.

 

[BSM1]

Not my perception. Economic fact. Google.

There are not opportunities around every corner, certainly not opportunities with a living wage.

You keep believing that while you rail against the guy driving a Mercedes...

 

[metis]

I think he was correct in his prediction about America becoming majorly divided and more people becoming disenfranchised. Whether it's due to competition or a combination of other factors, that's difficult to say.

We've also had different types of competition. The Cold War was a type of competition which some people claim we won. All wars are a competition. Then there is global competition among nations on an economic basis, as well as internal competition within America between corporations and other businesses. There's even competition among neighbors and family members - struggling to "keep up with the Joneses." We also have competition among different street gangs and criminal organizations.

There's also athletic competition, academic competition. Our legal system and political system are designed to be adversarial in nature.

But we also have a cooperative side. It could be reasonably argued that athletic competition (as an example) can build character and a sense of teamwork, which are vital in promoting cooperation. Even competitors have to sit down and cooperate once in a while.

I think that the trap that America has fallen into is that, ever since WW2 and all during the Cold War and up until today, our government has depended upon and needed strong unity among the body politic to be patriotic and supportive of American ideals in whatever endeavor we may have embarked upon. Even despite open challenges and confrontations during the 60s and 70s, we still managed to hold things together and keep most of the people content enough to maintain ourselves.

So, we may find ourselves at cross-purposes. We want everyone to be relatively content and "sustained" to some degree, and we also want a united, patriotic nation in support of American ideals and interventionism. But we also favor a system of cutthroat competition which has gotten ugly and which can leave a lot of people out in the cold.

We want a laissez-faire capitalist republic...and we want an empire spanning the globe. We wanted both, and we'll probably end up with neither.

Extremely well said, imo.

 

[metis]

I think Desmond Morris was wrong about America. For some reason, people are generally pessimistic about the future of our species. In a 2015 survey, 78% saw humanity in a moral decline although the opposite is true.

First of all, kudos on an excellent post, imo.

As far as the above, I agree with Morris that America's propensity for competition can and has hurt us to a point, but this is not the only factor at work here, so I've more taken a "wait and see" attitude, especially since we tend to be so flexible as a country. Just about the time I get discouraged something happens to bring us closer together, such as what happened here right after 9-11.

 

[metis]

"Held in check" is the problem. Yes, we will eventually hold Facebook
and Google in check. Under Marxism these corporations wouldn't exist.
Marxism tolerates no power but its own - the ultimate Corporation that
even has the power to kill you.

Why do you keep bringing up "Marxism" when no one is saying this is what we should be?

 

[sun rise]

No, they don't...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...0_story.html&usg=AOvVaw3RBNwqGhuHKS4WcMzaj9P4

The FDA under Trump has approved 1,600 generic drugs. But many aren’t for sale yet

Yes, agreements like the one in Leegin can sometimes reduce prices in the short term, but if too few companies gain too much market power, they may eventually gain the power to jack up prices. And if too few companies gain too much wealth, they don’t just become economic powerhouses. They also become political powerhouses that can distort our nation’s politics in dangerous ways. Not So Supreme?

Qualcomm sued by US regulators for anti-competitive practices

And much much MUCH more

 

[Valjean]

In governing, democracies are better than dictatorships but they are still lousy ways to select the people who will make decisions.

An efficient government decision-making system will satisfy these four criteria:

1) It will maximize the intelligence of the decision-makers;
2) It will maximize the training and experience of the decision-makers;
3) It will maximize the trust of the citizenry;
4) It will minimize the chances of a bias that sends the decision off course.

Democracies satisfy none of these criteria. I think the world is at the point where this problem is being recognized but, as yet, we don't have a solution on the table.

I think Plato and Huxley proposed interesting solutions.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

All societies contain socialist elements, else they wouldn't be social, but without checks and balances ("regulation") the aristocracy becomes parasitic, just like the alpha chimps.

[rig the system to block social mobility]
In the case of the American oligarchs, they have. There is little social mobility. Few can afford to loose their income and health insurance to change jobs or start a business. Few can even afford further education. There are serious barriers to social mobility.

Social mobility is exactly the right measure. In a society of meritocracy, it would be very high. If it's not ...one has to wonder why not?!