starting strength gym
Page 2752 of 3023 FirstFirst ... 1752225226522702274227502751275227532754276228022852 ... LastLast
Results 27,511 to 27,520 of 30228

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #27511
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    • starting strength seminar october 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
    It's my opinion that a lot of people (especially liberals) have a hard time telling the difference between capitalism and crony-capitalism. I don't have an opinion on what others should do or not do with their wealth. If they'd like to hoard it, have at it. I'm guessing just based on things I've seen members here write that most of us are in agreement that we prefer actual capitalism- free markets. I do not believe that is what BlackRock is up to, even if it may have been how they started....
    I took Smokey's comment about "good capitalism" to mean he was referencing crony capitalism or corruption.
    Exploitative corporate and financial practices usually are the result of the corrupt government redistribution of wealth.
    If he were a true commie, he would be expressing support for centralized banking institutions, like BlackRock and the Fed Reserve.
    BlackRock, the nation's new landlord, does not believe in the individual ownership of private property, hence it does not believe in the most basic definition of capitalism.

    Remember, Black Rock directly funded the communistic BLM/Antifia insurrection with $800 million dollars while extorting publicly traded corporations to fund them with billions of dollars.
    Fuck BlackRock.

  2. #27512
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    Does this mean my criticism of Nicholasís writing is off? Take into account that he essentially sought out the criticism.
    Nope. I didnít ever read Nicholasí post.

  3. #27513
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,685

    Default

    Do NOT watch this. It is disturbing. You do not want to be disturbed.

  4. #27514
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    What you are describing is not what the EU led institutions mean when they talk about public private partnerships.
    You're right, but since the very beginning the EU has been a socialist federalist enterprise with a declared goal of 'ever closer union' among its member states and the linking of industry to political goals. The very first mission of the EU (back when it was the EEC, the ECSC, and EURATOM) was to politically link the energy industries of France and Germany to prevent them from going to war with each other. That's a different story and bears no resemblance to the description of private asset managers keeping public institutions as clients as 'socialism.'

  5. #27515
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    South of France
    Posts
    3,015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
    It's my opinion that a lot of people (especially liberals) have a hard time telling the difference between capitalism and crony-capitalism...I'm guessing just based on things I've seen members here write that most of us are in agreement that we prefer actual capitalism- free markets.
    I think the current set-up, characterised by too-big-to-fail institutions like BlackRock, is exactly what free markets and capitalism tend to produce.

    One of the single, most effective decisions that produced the current state of affairs was to liberalise capital circulation; for Capital, markets have been increasingly free (since early 1970s), and they have exploited this liberty very effectively. The undeniable deluge of regulation produced by advanced industrial societies has never even scraped the surface of the privileges given to Capital, and that's all that Capital cares about. The world presents now fewer and fewer barriers to the movement of money, goods and people; crucially, only a small part of the global population can benefit from these lower barriers, while the rest bears the consequences.

    The interests of Capital and Labour are by definition divergent; if you limit Capital's freedom of movement, you force a confined playing field, one where Labour has some tools to operate, namely the ability to strike. But once you allow Capital to be traded freely across borders (and introduce the related freedoms of movement in goods and people), the situation become hopelessly asymmetric.
    Capital can arbitrage between States and move where it gets the best conditions (which by definition entail bad conditions for Labour); but Labour doesn't have such freedom, because people can't move that easily, they are attached to the place they grew up with, and can't resettle at will in another country. Striking has become ineffective, as striking labour force can be replaced with immigrants, of its products simply bought cheaper from abroad.
    Freedom of movement for Capital and Goods and people is the ultimate picket-buster.

    This excessive freedom is not a necessary or natural state of affairs; indeed, capital movement was heavily restricted in the years after Bretton Woods, and it allowed enormous progress in the living conditions of labour classes (yes, BW introduced a gold-based currency regime; but, crucially and necessarily, it also introduced limitations to capital movement. You could not have one without the other).
    Now these restrictions have been erased, and the Western world is quickly converging towards a replica of late XIX century, with high concentration of wealth, oligopolies and little social protections (which are presently still higher than in the XIX century, but are being dismantled fast).

    IPB

  6. #27516
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlPrincipeBrutto View Post
    I think the current set-up, characterised by too-big-to-fail institutions like BlackRock, is exactly what free markets and capitalism tend to produce.

    One of the single, most effective decisions that produced the current state of affairs was to liberalise capital circulation; for Capital, markets have been increasingly free (since early 1970s), and they have exploited this liberty very effectively. The undeniable deluge of regulation produced by advanced industrial societies has never even scraped the surface of the privileges given to Capital, and that's all that Capital cares about. The world presents now fewer and fewer barriers to the movement of money, goods and people; crucially, only a small part of the global population can benefit from these lower barriers, while the rest bears the consequences.

    The interests of Capital and Labour are by definition divergent; if you limit Capital's freedom of movement, you force a confined playing field, one where Labour has some tools to operate, namely the ability to strike. But once you allow Capital to be traded freely across borders (and introduce the related freedoms of movement in goods and people), the situation become hopelessly asymmetric.
    Capital can arbitrage between States and move where it gets the best conditions (which by definition entail bad conditions for Labour); but Labour doesn't have such freedom, because people can't move that easily, they are attached to the place they grew up with, and can't resettle at will in another country. Striking has become ineffective, as striking labour force can be replaced with immigrants, of its products simply bought cheaper from abroad.
    Freedom of movement for Capital and Goods and people is the ultimate picket-buster.

    This excessive freedom is not a necessary or natural state of affairs; indeed, capital movement was heavily restricted in the years after Bretton Woods, and it allowed enormous progress in the living conditions of labour classes (yes, BW introduced a gold-based currency regime; but, crucially and necessarily, it also introduced limitations to capital movement. You could not have one without the other).
    Now these restrictions have been erased, and the Western world is quickly converging towards a replica of late XIX century, with high concentration of wealth, oligopolies and little social protections (which are presently still higher than in the XIX century, but are being dismantled fast).

    IPB
    I think it's important to have some kind of rules to rein in a "free market", just as you need them for a "free society". Total freedom becomes no freedom eventually, as someone abuses that freedom to put themselves in a position to deny freedoms to others. Anarchy becomes tyranny, because nothing was stopping Lord Humongous from raising his army of misfits and taking over everything by force. I think if anything, capitalism needs an update. There are aspects of it that are inarguably good, but its core strength is a competitive environment. If you run a shit business, someone is supposed to be able to show up and do better. What we have now is allowing certain businesses to win so hard they can carry it over to essentially winning forever, even if they stop actually being truly competitive. Even "investment groups", when they control enough money, turn themselves into market makers. "Aladdin" doesn't have to actually pick worthy investments if the bulk of the world's investment capital is being invested using it. This is a great way to also create asset bubbles. But this is all made possible by government fuckery.

    It's government intervention that's allowed capital to grow out of control in the first place. When the government pumps money out into the economy, it ends up in the hands of capital, which is totally uninterested in using that money to promote the US economy, only to make money for itself. Normally, this would be fine for them to operate this way. But pure self-interest is a privilege of the purely self-reliant. They get that money precisely under the pretense it's going to make its way out into the broader US economy via expanding businesses and jobs. That doesn't happen. The government should've shut the faucet off long ago, because the water now is no longer "trickling down", it's leaking out into foreign countries. Investment capital is completely untethered from the fate of the nation's economy. When business is good, it has all the options it needs to turn that into profit. When business is BAD, it also has all the options it needs to turn that into profit. It doesn't also need our currency being constantly inflated just to juice it up on top of that.

  7. #27517
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MWM View Post
    You're right, but since the very beginning the EU has been a socialist federalist enterprise with a declared goal of 'ever closer union' among its member states and the linking of industry to political goals. The very first mission of the EU (back when it was the EEC, the ECSC, and EURATOM) was to politically link the energy industries of France and Germany to prevent them from going to war with each other. That's a different story and bears no resemblance to the description of private asset managers keeping public institutions as clients as 'socialism.'
    It is not a different story, because the concept of public private partnership that Subby was referring to was hatched in the socialist bowels of the EU. Which you yourself describe as socialist. I mean really, google the genesis of the idea.

  8. #27518
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,685

    Default

    Pandemic fitness trends have gone extreme — literally

    It appears the far right has taken advantage of pandemic at-home fitness trends to expand its decade-plus radicalization of physical mixed martial arts (MMA) and combat sports spaces.

    Earlier this month, researchers reported that a network of online “fascist fitness” chat groups on the encrypted platform Telegram are recruiting and radicalizing young men with neo-Nazi and white supremacist extremist ideologies. Initially lured with health tips and strategies for positive physical changes, new recruits are later invited to closed chat groups where far-right content is shared.

    Physical fitness has always been central to the far right. In “Mein Kampf,” Hitler fixated on boxing and jujitsu, believing they could help him create an army of millions whose aggressive spirit and impeccably trained bodies, combined with “fanatical love of the fatherland,” would do more for the German nation than any “mediocre” tactical weapons training.

    In more modern times, far-right groups have launched mixed martial arts and boxing gyms in Ukraine, Canada and France, among other places, focused on training far-right nationalists in violent hand-to-hand combat and street-fighting techniques. It’s caught the attention of intelligence authorities, especially in Europe, where various reports have noted the role of combat sports and MMA in radicalizing and promoting far-right violence. A series of collaborative efforts between governments, national sports associations, and local gyms in places such as Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom have introduced intervention and prevention programs.
    And more MSNBC bullshit. Free T-shirt to the first forum member arrested by the FBI.

    FBI Conducting Surveillance Of Far-Right Terrorist Training Ground | Babylon Bee

    WATERTOWN, SD — As mainstream media reports circulated that maintaining physical fitness is a sign of far-right extremism, a spokesperson for the Federal Bureau of Investigation disclosed that the agency already has a surveillance team closely monitoring what is believed to be a local fascist training facility.

    "This place just cranks out dangerous right-wing nutjobs," said one source within the FBI who requested to remain anonymous. "It may be located in a shopping mall, and the people coming in and out look like normal, law-abiding citizens…but with how physically fit they all appear to be, there is every indication that this place is a breeding ground for domestic terrorists."

    One man surveilled entering the alleged training facility was later reached for comment. "What are you talking about? I'm just working out?" said a confused Scott Poppen. "I've been coming here to exercise for years. It's no big deal. Why is there a black SUV that seems like it follows me to and from the gym? Who are those guys in suits and sunglasses that watch me when I'm in the locker room? What is this about?"

    As Mr. Poppen finished speaking, a tactical team of FBI agents emerged from nearby bushes outside the building, subdued him with a taser, and hauled him away with zip ties on his wrists and ankles.

    "We urge Americans to be on the alert," said FBI Director Christopher Wray. "We were very disturbed to find there are thousands of these 'fitness centers' across the country. Americans can rest assured that we have reallocated all our resources to monitoring and guarding against this dire threat."
    Comedy? Satire? Parody?

  9. #27519
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlPrincipeBrutto View Post
    I think the current set-up, characterised by too-big-to-fail institutions like BlackRock, is exactly what free markets and capitalism tend to produce.

    One of the single, most effective decisions that produced the current state of affairs was to liberalise capital circulation; for Capital, markets have been increasingly free (since early 1970s), and they have exploited this liberty very effectively. The undeniable deluge of regulation produced by advanced industrial societies has never even scraped the surface of the privileges given to Capital, and that's all that Capital cares about. The world presents now fewer and fewer barriers to the movement of money, goods and people; crucially, only a small part of the global population can benefit from these lower barriers, while the rest bears the consequences.

    The interests of Capital and Labour are by definition divergent; if you limit Capital's freedom of movement, you force a confined playing field, one where Labour has some tools to operate, namely the ability to strike. But once you allow Capital to be traded freely across borders (and introduce the related freedoms of movement in goods and people), the situation become hopelessly asymmetric.
    Capital can arbitrage between States and move where it gets the best conditions (which by definition entail bad conditions for Labour); but Labour doesn't have such freedom, because people can't move that easily, they are attached to the place they grew up with, and can't resettle at will in another country. Striking has become ineffective, as striking labour force can be replaced with immigrants, of its products simply bought cheaper from abroad.
    Freedom of movement for Capital and Goods and people is the ultimate picket-buster.

    This excessive freedom is not a necessary or natural state of affairs; indeed, capital movement was heavily restricted in the years after Bretton Woods, and it allowed enormous progress in the living conditions of labour classes (yes, BW introduced a gold-based currency regime; but, crucially and necessarily, it also introduced limitations to capital movement. You could not have one without the other).
    Now these restrictions have been erased, and the Western world is quickly converging towards a replica of late XIX century, with high concentration of wealth, oligopolies and little social protections (which are presently still higher than in the XIX century, but are being dismantled fast).

    IPB
    Thanks for this IPB. I've lately found that personal experience and drilling it all down to the individual and personal experience erodes all this talk of "capital" and "labour" into the intellectual and philosophical BS that the communists and Progressives use it for.

    We'll use SS as an example. A new SS coach earns less per hour of training than he would on his own because he is subordinate to the Capital of, first, the SS Gym owner, and at a higher level, the SS brand of Rip and Stef themselves. At this level, in the physical SS gym in the states, the SS coach still has, as you described, his "labour" freedom, since he can organize and strike if his SS gym Capital owners, or the SS brand itself, do not give him enough social protections
    (What are "social protections"? If these are taxes that are paid for government programs, I have to ask why it's universally acceptable for the individual to try to pay as little in taxes as possible, but when Capital (a business owner) does it, now he is eroding social protections?).

    I assume, IPB, that you are "OK" with this SS Coach earning less as an employee than he would as a self-employed coach, not simply because he (the "labour") has traded the risk of self-employment for the stability of working for Mr. Capital, but because this Capital-Labour relationship has remained local and so our SS Coach still has the ability violate his part of the contract to blackmail concessions out of Mr. Capital (=strike).

    So, what changes if the SS Gym/SS brand hire online coaches from other countries? Now those online coaches can be paid less than an American coach by the SS Gym/Rip & Stef, but they (the Capital) can presumably charge the client the same.

    What is the "wrong" here? Labour (the SS coach) traded its freedom to sell itself at the highest possible price for the security of Capital (the SS Gym/Rip and Stef's Brand) doing all the marketing and other work, to provide the SS coach with a client to actually coach. (This marketing shit is no piece of cake, BTW! It takes a lot of education, testing, time, risk, and patience.) The former (self-employment) is risky so Labour voluntarily reduced its worth for the security of the latter (W2 employment/working for Capital).

    Yes, Global movement of Capital increases the ability of business owners to find ever-cheaper employees, but it also provides more opportunities for Labour to find security in the form of secure income. (Think here of small towns where only one person gets the fourth-grade teaching job, and that teacher doesn't retire for forty years. Now with a global market for Capital, Labour - the teacher - can find the security he is looking for somewhere else.)

    The inherent injustice of Capital risk-takers "using" security-seeking Labour is not eliminated when you regulate Capital to stay local; the injustice is simply amplified (but the available options to find security are amplified, too) when Mr. Capital can move internationally more easily.

    And if the online SS Coach (labor), who charges more to his clients or to the SS Gym than an international coach does, cannot find enough clients, that is a marketing failure on his part, not some overarching failure of the International Labour-Capital system. He or she needs to explain to his bosses or his clients how the service that he is providing is inherently better than the international coach's is.

    Restricting the movement of business too much to protect workers will always fail because it will never eliminate the inherent imbalance of this business-worker relationship: that the business takes all the risk and in return pays the worker less in actual dollars, because he is in fact NOT paying the worker less: he's giving the working security + paying him a dollar salary.

  10. #27520
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    478

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    It's not your thoughts that are not organized well, it is that you write in a too complex fashion, with too much cuteness and compound sarcasm. You should try to write in shorter sentences. You can't expect people to follow your stream of consciousness. Once you get this down, try to add in a bit of sarcasm, and work your way up from there. Essentially, NLP the big sentences.
    Thanks for this honest feedback. I love being able to string together thoughts and finding the perfect linking word to join together ideas: I always choose a semi-colon, colon, parentheses, or dash if they are possible! This preference of mine probably comes from a childhood surrounded by aunts and uncles who loved debating politics around the dinner table. But Tolstoy is known for his incredibly long sentences too (one of them could take up half a page!), so maybe it's just a writing style preference! There's a history of bipolarism in the extended family which could explain complex thoughts and stream-of-consciousness, but the high level of mind-drug use in Americans makes me wonder whether manic depression and bilpolarism are even "things," so we won't go there.

    Quote Originally Posted by VNV View Post
    You sound like Scaldrew, one of the more literary visitors of the board. Come to think of it, I don't think we've ever seen Jovan and Scaldrew together.
    Can you believe that Russians (at least as of 15 years ago) don't learn "Principles of Rhetoric" writing skills in college?! My wife during heated arguments tells me I can shove that rhetoric and logic BS up my ass! They also have perfected the browbeating of students' egos and drilling of memorization into their kids beginning in elementary school. This does wonders for their "STEM" intelligence but kills the risk-taking and self-confidence skills necessary for entrepreneurial creativity IMHO. Forced group work is also conspicuously absent from public schools but I cannot conclude yet how or whether that affects productivity at work and enjoyment in life.

    Quote Originally Posted by VNV View Post
    Nope. I didn’t ever read Nicholas’ post.
    VNV, you missed out! I'm trying to figure out why some countries are blessed with better leaders than others, and why even the "free" countries of the world have some aspects of slavery and serfdom still in them. One hypothesis is that if you've already convinced yourself that you are "free," you cannot make sense of the inanity and treason of your leaders' decisions, and so you're stuck in analysis paralysis and righteous indignation instead of taking action to fix the things that the people who are "wrong" are nonethless breaking. Another idea is that the "better" leaders acknowledge the innate differences and superiority of their people's culture and history, and force newcomers (immigrants) to mostly assimilate, instead of pandering to them and trying to accommodate everyone's own unique history and culture.

    Do you have any ideas? Each country seems to handle immigration rules, assimilation of newcomers, reactions to protests, internal political strife, lying, country-hating, fake-news journalists, and selection of leaders differently. And these don't seem correlated to intelligence, age of country, size of immigrant population, or quality/complexity of the Constitution - what are the causal factors?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •