Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Yet another indication (if we needed it) that making money doesn't imply intelligence that translates to anything else.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
filghy2
Yet another indication (if we needed it) that making money doesn't imply intelligence that translates to anything else.
Are so many Americans fooled into thinking that if someone has 'made it' then they must be so much cleverer than they are, to the extent that they would allow them to influence the laws they live by and the quality of their lives?
Ramaswamy like most rich businessmen before him, is a 'self-made' millionaire who relied at some stage on his journey on the loans he got from others, but what strikes me most about him, is his lack of knowledge of the political system he wants to change.
Trump has admitted he doesn't understand the Constitution of the United States, he doesn't even understand it when a lawyer or a Court explains it to him, or rather he just doesn't care since his own opinion is all that matters. So here is Ramaswamy exhibiting his own ignorance of the political system he wants to change. Lastly, why do these people always bang on about 'system change' rather than the bread and butter issues most people deal with every day -the homeless, the cost of living, health care, the quality of their children's schooling and education?
I don't expect him to go far in the process, but he is symptomatic of the way so-called Conservatives these days don't want to conserve as much as destroy, making them revolutionaries in all but name -but a revolution for what?
In the UK Liz Truss tried to radicalize the economy, and within weeks was forced to resign -the policies just don't work in the existing framework of capitalism. Not that Trump or Ramaswamy care about reality.
Vivek Ramaswamy Wants to Rewrite the Constitution (yahoo.com)
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
"The Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has said that he wants Elon Musk as an adviser if he becomes president."
"Ramaswamy said in response that he wanted people with a “blank fresh impression” who do not “come from within” the government."
"“I’ve enjoyed getting to know better, Elon Musk recently, I expect him to be an interesting adviser of mine because he laid off 75% of the employees at Twitter,” NBC reports. “And then the effectiveness actually went up.”In an earlier interview this month with Fox News, Ramaswamy said of the layoffs: “What [Musk] did at Twitter is a good example of what I want to do with the administrative state … Take out the 75% of the dead weight cost, improve the actual experience of what it’s supposed to do.”
Vivek Ramaswamy says he wants Elon Musk to be his presidential adviser | Vivek Ramaswamy | The Guardian
Nothing new here. Carter and Reagan were both touted as 'Not Washington' people. As for 'fresh' -hardly the word to use about Elon Musk....
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
"“I’ve enjoyed getting to know better, Elon Musk recently, I expect him to be an interesting adviser of mine because he laid off 75% of the employees at Twitter,” NBC
reports. “And then the effectiveness actually went up.”In an earlier interview this month with Fox News, Ramaswamy
said of the layoffs: “What [Musk] did at Twitter is a good example of what I want to do with the administrative state … Take out the 75% of the dead weight cost, improve the actual experience of what it’s supposed to do.”
Yes, from what I hear Twitter is magnificent now. :rolleyes:
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Vivek Ramaswamy is a slimy right wing loving toolbag.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
“What [Musk] did at Twitter is a good example of what I want to do with the administrative state … ”
He may have spoken the truth there.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
“What [Musk] did at Twitter is a good example of what I want to do with the administrative state … Take out the 75% of the dead weight cost, improve the actual experience of what it’s supposed to do.”
I also think this is unintended candor. He pretends he's talking about removing burdensome regulations and increasing efficiency, but what happened at twitter is cherrypicked regulation, which is probably his model for the administrative state.
Musk does ban speech that he doesn't like. He makes deals with authoritarian governments, he bans people who insult him, he prevents people from using block bc he's been blocked, and in general has turned twitter into a place where truth has no greater standing than misinformation, and severe, wanton wrongdoing is not considered worse than mild insults directed at the wrong person. In other words, it is the pretense of deregulation hiding behind the caprice of authoritarian fiat.
What Ramaswamy would do is promote corruption in place of regulation. Deregulate where the regulations burden some industries, regulate where the industries are benefitted by the regulations, and ignore conflicts of interest and self-enrichment in government.
As an irrelevant aside, I have to mention that Ramaswamy released a video of him hitting forehands the other day. I don't have anything to say that anyone else hasn't said. I will point out they were not terrible, just not very good. His footwork was awful and inefficient, his forehand was somewhat ugly but hit with the kind of coordination fo someone who plays a little bit of tennis. He wanted to give the impression of being very good and he probably is a usta 4.0 at best. Didn't show his backhand. In short, you can tell he's a fraud with a minimum of attention.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
What Ramaswamy would do is promote corruption in place of regulation. Deregulate where the regulations burden some industries, regulate where the industries are benefitted by the regulations, and ignore conflicts of interest and self-enrichment in government.
What you would have (and this is also true of Trump and De Santis to a fair degree) is not minimal government but activist government with different goals. Rather than addressing market failures in the public interest or improving equity, the aim of the state would be to reward ideological cronies of the government and punish its enemies.
In many ways, this is analogous to how capitalism operated under fascism, where profit maximisation was condoned as long as capitalists served the interests of the regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
What is under-appreciated in relation to people like Ramiswamy and Musk is that venture capitalism is essentially a form of gambling. These people make risky bets in the hope that enough will pay off to make their fortune. The majority who don't succeed we never hear about, but those who do succeed then persuade themselves and others that success was due to their unique genius rather than luck (or some cases inside knowledge). They then try to leverage their fame and fortune to some other field, with the usual consequences that result when ignorance and overconfidence are combined.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
It's interesting that he wants to rewrite the Constitution when one of his previously-declared 10 truths was:
"10. The US Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vi...gn/ar-AA1fAdm8
It seems like all supposedly conservative principles these days are sacrosanct when useful to stop the other side doing things, but can be discarded when convenient to the right.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
filghy2
It's interesting that he wants to rewrite the Constitution when one of his previously-declared 10 truths was:
"10. The US Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vi...gn/ar-AA1fAdm8
It seems like all supposedly conservative principles these days are sacrosanct when useful to stop the other side doing things, but can be discarded when convenient to the right.
You have made good points in your last two posts. On one level, I think it is clear that the core ideas that used to be associated with Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists have been eroded by events, such as the expansion of a global economy since 1989, and the crash of 2008, but also by a failure in politics to produce solutions that satisfy the broad mass of people. From a cynical point of view, Capitalism remains the dominant economic model globally, and benefits the few rather than the many, and yet what Trump and Ramaswamy claim to represent are the losers, even though they are beneficiaries of the very 'corrupt' system they claim they want to get rid of.
Ramaswamy may talk about stripping out layers of government and administration, but the majority of American citizens who work are employed either directly or indirectly on Federal or State government contracts. If this policy means making a substantial number of Americans redundant -and a lot of Black Americans work for the State or the Fed in some capacity- what of that other historic bogey called Welfare? I once heard a Republican on the radio say, simply 'take away the welfare and those people will get jobs'. Yet none of the previous Presidents -Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II or Trump took an axe to welfare, even as these days Republicans call all Federal spending 'Socialism'.
So I am puzzled as to why, when in Europe for example, most Socialist parties have lost elections and have become weak parties, but why the Nationalists have challenged and often replaced the Conservatives, when in policy terms it may mean the erosion of civil liberties, but does not produce the kind of economic growth for all that is promoted, usually through the use of the word 'Great'. Trump has his 'Made America Great Again', Boris Johnson's Brexit vision was of a 'Global Britain' which is just another version of 'Great' (though if only geographically it is already there in Britain).
So if Ramaswamy fires most of America, where is the wealth going to come from?
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
filghy2
What is under-appreciated in relation to people like Ramiswamy and Musk is that venture capitalism is essentially a form of gambling. These people make risky bets in the hope that enough will pay off to make their fortune.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Even mutual and hedge fund managers who make hundreds of decisions per year need a pretty long track record before one should be convinced they are skillful stock pickers.
Like you, I am sure you cannot conclude much about someone's intellect based on a handful of large investments in risky ventures. Both of these guys seem like megalomaniacal idiots.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
People who do not "believe" in climate change can easily also not "believe" in the sun, water, breathing, skin and bones, potatoes and millions of other real life things.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
From a cynical point of view, Capitalism remains the dominant economic model globally, and benefits the few rather than the many, and yet what Trump and Ramaswamy claim to represent are the losers, even though they are beneficiaries of the very 'corrupt' system they claim they want to get rid of.
Neither or them are proposing to anything about the system that creates these inequalities. I fact, they want to gut the limited regulations that prevent corporations from exploiting their workers and consumers. When they rail against elites (as if they weren't elite themselves) they just mean elites who support things they don't like.
When Trump was President the main economic priorities were deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. The only point on which he differed from Republican economic orthodoxy was his enthusiasm for trade protection, which I think is just an extension of his general xenophobia.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
Yet none of the previous Presidents -Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II or Trump took an axe to welfare, even as these days Republicans call all Federal spending 'Socialism'.
I think one the major reductions in welfare might have occurred under Bill Clinton. There were also significant Social Security adjustments under Reagan (you may recall some idiot here tried to blame this on Biden). Bush II did have a go at more fundamental Social Security reform, which went nowhere. Republicans also went within one vote of abolishing Obamacare under Trump.
I think John McCain may have done them a favour there, because otherwise many of their potential voters would have realised that this dreaded 'socialism' was actually helping them. These proposals are based on magical thinking - claiming that it's possible to save many billions of $ without affecting any ordinary people.
Re: Rama, the Swami and all that Lolly
Points taken. That said, I think the scorched earth policy claims are probably just headlines, as I doubt even if Ramaswamy were to be elected, Congress would abolish welfare at a stroke, which after all is what people like him really want.
