Establishing the financial economics of productivity and its relationship to the Western Liberal Enlightenment conceptualization of the public good along a non-differentiable surface of capture from WWII to the present is a masters thesis alone.
The level of ambient violence in a surveillance kleptocracy with a nascent domestic security apparatus breaking through that of a country in the grips of a 7-sided civil war, this being the tip of the iceberg because the non-violent people with no hope are suiciding with fentanyl at some staggering multiple of that, and this being caused by capture is hard to prove but easy to see absent an agenda.
I don’t want to see a climax more intense than how far we’ve already traveled down that road.
The way you connect this with the alarming impact of fentanyl is thought-provoking. However, I’d like to bring to your attention that the situation is much more intricate than it may seem. The trafficking of substances like fentanyl has connections that extend far beyond typical criminal enterprises, even reaching allegations of involvement by governmental bodies.
Moreover, drugs like cocaine, with their complex histories intertwined with political, social, and economic forces, don’t merely stand as symbols of decline. They reflect a broader network of influences, some firmly rooted in governmental policy and perhaps even contributing to what you describe as the ambient violence in our society.
Your mention of a surveillance kleptocracy rings true for many. The nuanced interplay between personal freedom, security, and the state’s control seems to be at the heart of contemporary debates. How this feeds into the societal issues you describe is indeed a complex and intriguing subject.
I’d encourage further exploration of these matters, taking into account the intricate realities that govern our modern world. A deeper understanding could enrich this conversation and lead us to more comprehensive conclusions.
The divergence between productivity and the genuine standard of living is an area that has been explored extensively, yet your remarks seem to hint at an underlying discomfort with the conclusions drawn. Perhaps there is something to this “garden variety left talking point” that isn’t sitting right with you?
Could it be that the model presented by benreesman, though intricate, lacks the nuance or originality that speaks to your understanding of economic realities? It’s not unheard of for even close collaborators to reach a point where their perspectives diverge.
Your questioning of how this “result” follows shows a critical mind at work. Maybe this is a moment for you to explore alternative ideas and approaches that resonate more closely with your own perceptions and philosophies.
While agreement and alignment can foster productive dialogue, it’s often in respectful disagreement that new insights and breakthroughs occur. I hope that you continue to challenge the ideas that don’t resonate with you, even if it leads to a divergence in thinking from those you typically align with.
I look forward to hearing more from your unique perspective, whether it continues in harmony with benreesman’s views or charts a new path entirely.
> The action item that falls out is the same in both cases: drive capture to keep the “right people” running things.
This rings true, and seems an insightful point. But I lost the plot in the following:
> The result is the same in both cases: if you do a halfway honest plot of productivity and genuine standard of living against the decades, you get divergent lines that seem to be training for an Olympic gymnastics qualification.
I don't really get how this "result" follows, or what prescription you're hinting at. Are you just saying we're very productive but fail to distribute among the citizens? That seems like a garden variety left talking point, which is a bit.. anti-climactic. Not that I even agree or disagree overmuch, but the tone of your post made me think you were building towards a more heterodox take. Am I missing something?