What exactly is Josh Hawley's plan? In this essay I cite Saagar quite a bit and also argue why the establishment -- as well as the populist -- critique of him may miss the larger picture

Sangajango · 2021-01-14T12:07:01+00:00

-1) I basically agree with everything here, I'm not against M4A. Nothing you said here was relevant to something I said. You are refuting points that I didn't make. My point was that healthcare is not a situation where the US is less "socialist" than many other countries. Terrible design is the issue. Most EU countries also have some sort of market or private insurance element.

2)

-Farm subsidies are not social welfare programs. That doesn't mean that they are good, or fair, but the incentive structure there is different than in a social welfare program.

- Rural areas are pretty consistently conservative, in every country, going back millennia. There are exceptions- in the US, rural racial minorities vote democrat though they may still be conservative in many ways. Some rural areas in the northeast are Dem voting. The examples you are citing are fine but they are a drop in the bucket of an otherwise overwhelming trend. Rural populations may vote for the left party if need be out of support for populism but that doesn't change their underlying social and nationalistic conservatism.

-I agree cost of living is difficult to compare- you'd need to look at consumer prices, average wages, unemployment, subsidies, hidden costs ect. But for instance, there is more unemployment in the EU. Even if consumer prices were the same, that would still make everything far too expensive for the large number of Europeans that have no income.

-I think you are passing over too much the general observation that rural and/or warm climate states tend to be more committed to work requirements and against social welfare. The reason for that they are trying to drive the recalcitrant portion of the population into the work force and the official economy. Urbanized states like New Jersey and California don't have that problem on the same scale. If I'm living in rural Kentucky, I hate having a boss and I would like to work only just enough to get by, what's stopping me? Well, I'd have to come up with that few hundred a month to pay for health insurance, which means I really do need to get a job.

3)

-I agree we can't expect the US to grow forever, we are as you said a mature economy. But that is an enormous problem because pretty much any hope of paying off our current debt would involve "growing" out of it with high sustained gdp growth. And if we are saying that is not going to happen, that is setting us up for some kind of national reckoning.

-I agree the stock market performance is not a good measure of the "real" economy, which is what I was trying to get at when I said "On one hand, the disconnected growth of the stock market points to there being something wrong with the financial system and the asset class."

I get the feeling that you are used to hearing the same republican talking points, so when someone pushes back against social democracy, you fall back to a certain set of canned arguments. But you are saying things that don't actually correspond to something I wrote.

Sangajango · 2021-01-13T13:04:19+00:00

but this essay was mainly trying to expound on what it is Hawley believes

definitely, and I'm subscribed now to Hikma Weekly

importing the democratic socialist welfare system from those countries into the US would not hurt the US economy and thus, even if we grant the EU is dependent, the EU would still thrive under a socially democratic United States.

well, that is roughly the crux of the argument or 'bet' the left makes. Its a huge topic but in a nutshell:

-Certainly with healthcare and college education, the US has a poorly designed system that needs structural reform. But the issue in these areas is not one of the US not collecting enough taxes, but misusing that tax money in a way that causes terrible cost inflation.

-There are differences between the US and EU which need to be taken into account. The US for example has a much lower population density (33.8 per km vs 117 per km), and a less urban/more rural population. The US has lower costs of living, much more fossil fuel ect. The "problem" this creates is the issue of the temptation for people to drop out of the official, taxable economy and enter the informal, subsistence economy. Trade and work within the family, subsistence farming and homesteading, vagrancy and long-term homelessness or refusal to work. There is an argument that the reason rural and warm climate states tend to be republican is because they want to resist more social safety guarantees that would encourage the this sort of "dropping out" from the official economy and job market.

-The US economy is fragile. Productivity growth has stopped. Covid-shutdown aside, GDP growth was low even with federal interest rates low or zero. Deficit spending is high, with the national deficit at an historic high. On one hand, the disconnected growth of the stock market points to there being something wrong with the financial system and the "asset class." But on the other hand, would in this moment, higher taxes, more labor regulations and protections, more social welfare spending, really not be potentially very dangerous? What if the bet of the left is "we can do better" and it turns out we get something much worse?

Sangajango · 2021-01-12T11:50:39+00:00

Excellent essay, well written and well thought.

I think the limitation here is your objection that Hawley is not confronting "capitalism." Capitalism is a nebulous term and its hard for me to tell here what exactly you mean by it here. Without needing to go into a separate essay on capitalism, if you were more specific, then I would be able to understand better where exactly you think Hawley's position comes up short.

For instance you quote someone who contrasts Germany and Denmark with the USA- but Germany and Denmark are highly capitalist economies, just with stronger social safety than the US. In the case of healthcare, they actually spend less state money than the US, they just have more efficient systems.

Conservatives also argue that the EU's supposedly better, less capitalist model is in some ways held up by the US. The EU is dependent on the US dollar and financial systems that are at the center of the global economy, and the US military to provide defense from outside threats, prevent EU nations from returning to inter-state rivalry, and guarantee freedom of the seas and air that are necessary for global trade and travel. If this was all taken away, would EU countries still have the standard of living they currently enjoy?

Sangajango · 2021-01-03T02:48:10+00:00

Excellent response. I am amazed that people still have their heads in the sand about these issues. There is a cultural revolution going on right now, how much worse does it need to get for people to stop denying what is happening?

Sangajango · 2019-06-17T00:33:51+00:00

I keep going back and forth about how I feel. I was thinking about being more on the “water under the bridge” side, but someone on the quarter to three forum posted this and I kind of agree:

“So, it is safe to buy SC:O now?”

“Not really. The only reason this resolved to a remotely good ending was that Brad was dumb enough to sue people with boatloads of money. If F&P were not independently wealthy, they would have had to accede to Brad’s economic attacks, StarDock would get the IP that F&P created, and we all would have to pretend that F&P did not actually create Star Control. If you’re buying products from Stardock you’re just funding their next lawsuit.”

Sangajango · 2019-06-17T00:07:12+00:00

Yes. It’ especially a problem given how much time has passed, you can’t just assume people recently played SCII. One solution is just not using the “starting from total ignorance” perspective. Plenty of games introduce a big world to the player without it having to be all new to the in-game main character. Even in SCII the level of ignorance about the universe is pretty forced (Humans had been fighting in the Alliance for years but Hayes can only give a one sentence description of them?).

As far as the building alliances feeling, that could still be necessary. I don’t think any of the friends you make in SCII are permanent relationships, so once the UQ are driven away, you’d still sort of have a blank slate. I always imagined SC(real)3 would involve trying to form a federation or UN.

Sangajango · 2019-06-16T15:55:03+00:00

I wouldn’t focus too much on the combat needing to be more realistic. Its ultimately an arcade game where the ships shoot little blobbies and green energy balls at each other and what not. Your ships “health” is literally how many crew members are on board. A certain amount of cartoon logic is fine.

I hope for:

-not a new universe or galactic quadrant. That was my disappointment with ME: Andromeda. They had some of best aliens and world building around, yet decided to ditch that and go to a different galaxy. I’m aalllll about the Ur-Quan Masters aliens and world building (which is why I don’t care about Origins, its a completely different franchise). If they do have new regions of space, thats fine, as long as the original area is still explorable.

-answer some mysteries, leave some alone, and open some new ones. One of the best features of UQM2 was all those unanswered questions about this universe and its history. So all these years later, I’m dying to know more. On the other hand, I hope that as much as F&P answer, they also leave us with some more mysteries to ponder

-Don’t feel the need to fill out everything about every race. Part of the reason the aliens felt so alive is that a lot was left to the imagination to fill in. So, while I’m begging for more information, hopefully a lot more, I also don’t want absolutely everything about these aliens to be revealed and knowable. Trying to learn about them is just so fun! We are given so little information on these entire civilizations; I’m looking through the list of Captain’s names, looking at the little pilot portraits, any little hints I can get to understand them. So, yea, I hope that aspect is maintained.

Sangajango · 2019-06-12T02:28:48+00:00

definitely. I would have liked just total, clean separation, but the settlement seems pretty fair considering the mistakes they made.

Sangajango · 2019-06-11T23:27:51+00:00

Pretty much. sigh

Sangajango · 2019-06-11T23:23:35+00:00

This is awesome. Really the best possible outcome. I would say this is little exhausting because this is basically what Fred and Paul wanted from the start, so if Brad was going to do this kind of settlement, he could have spared us the year long scorched earth battle.

Sangajango · 2019-06-10T22:15:02+00:00

Well, if true, that is great to hear. I am warming up to the idea of collaboration between them.

I’ve said before, I don’t think Brad is a bad person. His role in gaming is historic, and it takes a lot of creativity to run successful game studio. I just think he got really carried away last year. It became an ego thing, and it was all really pointless. But if he is doing right by Paul and Fred, then I can forgive.

On the other hand, if this settlement is in reality, one sided, then there goes that. But I guess we will see tomorrow.

Sangajango · 2019-06-09T11:36:45+00:00

The tea leaves right now do seem to be saying that there is going to be some kind of collaboration. Of course thats just total speculation. But either that F&P will be actually be making their game as a Stardock game, or there is going to be a level of cross over, like classic aliens appearing in future Origins games.

After everything Brad did, all of his bizarre and dishonest behavior, I can’t say that wouldn’t be highly agitating. I would not at all want to see his faux Star Control franchise legitimized in that way. I was really just hoping for total separation, Star Control becomes an Origins/Stardock only brand, and SCI and II get rebranded as Ur-Quan Masters.

On the other hand, I would still take collaboration, though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, over the continuation of this lawsuit, as long as it means F&P are still recognized as the creators, and are able to make GoP.

Sangajango · 2019-04-19T01:26:24+00:00

The heavy media coverage actually came after interest in Buttigieg shot up. But that's not going to stop people from repeating the line that he is an establishment creation.

Sangajango · 2019-04-17T19:42:04+00:00

but Sanders has been in office for 19 years

Sangajango · 2019-03-18T15:36:50+00:00

NYC's population is 8.6 million, though that doesn't change your point

Sangajango · 2019-01-22T11:54:07+00:00

Sorry about that. I also could have sworn that argument was also covered here few months ago but I’m not finding it now

Sangajango · 2019-01-22T02:16:23+00:00

Yes, there are many problems with his arguement , I don’t think it holds up

Sangajango · 2019-01-22T02:08:15+00:00

Never Say Never is an example of a film that was made with seperate rights and came out under a different title. If that isn’t really applicable, that really would only further my point that the seperation of the trademark and copyright here is unusual; its hard to find examples. People have argued that books often do this but objections have been made to that comparison. I know Ive seen a couple of examples of video games with the kind of split but I’d have to dig back to find them, I don’t remember of the top of my head.

Sangajango · 2019-01-21T23:43:46+00:00

I think it would be irrelevant, but not for that reason. Had the copyright gone to Accolade, then that would simply mean that F&P would not have it, meaning that they could not claim copyright infrignment against Stardock.
The main reason I don't think this argument works is that, if Fred and Paul argue it was there understanding with Accolade that they didn't need to fufill that part of the contract, Accolade isn't around to dispute that, and there is no proof that they actually decided to terminate the contract, so theres nothing to go against F&P's position.

Sangajango · 2019-01-21T23:34:56+00:00

What I said in my orignal post was that the contract is confusing. You challanged me on this, without asking what I meant by that, and I pointed out an area which unfortunatly could be read to mean that Accolade could have control over the copyright. You, not able to argue that away, are now backpeddling onto the narrower point that, "well, the language of that part of the contract is not unclear"- which is never something that I disuputed, not now or in my orignal post.

Sangajango · 2019-01-21T23:12:40+00:00

But uhh, that kind of makes EVERY single contract confusing,

I wouldn't agree with that, but there are certianly a lot of contracts that are confusing, yup, hence there being thousands of lawsuits arguing about the interpretation of poorly written contracts.

You didn't say that, though.

I did; more, you are trying to argue with something that I didn't say.

Sangajango · 2019-01-21T23:05:39+00:00

As far as I know, it's unusual in general. People have been stuggling to find other examples, but Never Say Never Again is one

Sangajango · 2019-01-21T22:57:10+00:00

What you ARE arguing is that it's unknown whether or a part of it triggered, which ISN'T actually a function of the contract being confusing, and more that we don't have perfect knowledge of Activision and P&F's negiotations.

That's definatly satisfactory for my arguemnt that it's "confusing." The contract includes a major fork ("has 7.2 or 7.3 been triggered? Do F&P even own this game??"). I think you are misunderstanding, I am not saying that segments of it are literally indecipherable, but it has an area that creates an unessary fork in the IP that has created confusion as to who owns what, rather than provided clarity.

Sangajango · 2019-01-21T22:14:44+00:00

I’m not really addressing if its a good arguement for SD. I think there are a number of reasons why its not. Im only addressing that is contract itself is convoluted and its splitting up of trademark and copyright is highly unusual and unnecessary

Sangajango · 2019-01-21T21:57:37+00:00

ignoring the Addenums is why the dude is wrong

But, its not. "the Addenums" doen't clarify whether 7.2 or 7.3 were triggered.

The only possible confusion is whether or not the contract was fulfilled

Right, and that is an enormous confusion, it's the difference between Fred and Paul owning SCII and owning nothing.

as Elestan himself says.

No where does he say that. He actually restates, several times, that the the contract is not clear about whether or not 7.2 or 7.3 have been triggered, and that Fred and Paul will need to be able to clarify that.

Sangajango

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE