DiscussMormonism.com

A grab bag of video summaries.

https://youtu.be/sZDh8JvUG1Q?si=thmuzP285DDI6RaD

Chris Hedges: Former member of the Greek parliament and Minister of Finance Yanis Varoufakis joins host Chris Hedges on this episode of The Chris Hedges Report to explain how capitalism is dead and a new form of capital, the title of his new book, “Technofeudalism,” has arisen and holds power akin to the feudal lords of medieval times.

https://youtu.be/Fhgm5b8BR0k?si=R5hlqZgNj76_qvDB

A 16 minute video summary of TECHNOFEUDALISM: What killed capitalism (the book published in the UK by Penguin and in the US by Melville House)

https://youtu.be/hNblIGVKgks?si=jfqVRyFGHmF4kYfc

Wisecrack: The Silicon Valley Plan to End Capitalism

While the billionaires of Silicon Valley might seem like they're pushing capitalism into a brave new world, they're actually trying to move beyond it all together. It's called technofeudalism, and it imagines a world in which powerful corporations and oligarchs replace governments. While it might sound like something out of a dystopian film, we're already living in it. We'll explain in this video on how the tech bros want to re-shape politics.

Seems that words such as plutocracy and oligarchy have increasingly made their presence known in our current government. Look who had prime seats on the stage at the last American Presidential inauguration.

Markk brought up neoliberalism in a post defending the most destructive bill in a generation or more. I suggest he learn more about the walking dead man that is Capitalism and how technofeudalism is the actual result of neoliberalism over the last four decades.

Did he convince you that he understands what that big word means to a greater degree than Hound understands the word "Marxism?" If so, I will find the post and read it. Otherwise, we'll leave things where they are.

No, he said it in relation to a very neoliberal assertion about the big beautiful bill's wealth redistribution upwards. It's wild to see someone in 2025 still espousing Reaganomics but I also figure some people get their sound bites at some point in their life and that becomes that.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon May 26, 2025 1:59 am

No, he said it in relation to a very neoliberal assertion about the big beautiful bill's wealth redistribution upwards. It's wild to see someone in 2025 still espousing Reaganomics but I also figure some people get their sound bites at some point in their life and that becomes that.

There's no consistency here, I guarantee it. My right-wing frenemy is out to lunch in similar ways. We've only had one brief scuff-up since tariffs were announced. Prior to the election he made it clear that Trump wasn't going to touch his Medicare. His mother, who came here illegally from a European country, was on Medicaid for many years prior to her death. It's not like he needs Medicare, he's wealthy enough and also has private insurance, but he's the most paranoid nutcase I've ever met when it comes to every last dime that he believes is rightfully his. And so, psychologically, Medicare is a huge deal for him. In fact, I believe the cost for something related to it went up a couple years ago and he was outraged. Now, this other guy in the hood, who is well off but not to the same degree as frenemy number 1, has his wife and his mother both in memory care facilities, and both are on Medicaid. He himself is doing terribly and will be in assisted living soon. The money from his mother's house was nearly gone the last time I spoke with him. This guy is more pleasant to deal with, but he's also more pro Trump. Insanely pro-Trump. But oh yeah, his benefits matter.

So all this nonsense about conservatives believing in trickledown prosperity is quite selective. If government is benefiting them, they do in fact care a great deal. I suppose we shall see the degree to which the historic base is actually affected. I will of course, laugh my ass off if the right-wingers in my neighborhood begin losing their benefits, but I'm skeptical it will ever affect them directly.

On a technical note. I've been surprised at the level of Von Mises worship that's still out there. I've followed (less now) a variety of finance channels since the tariffs, and there are some thoroughly libertarian dudes out there who are actually consistent: they abhor the tariffs but praise the cuts to government. They literally believe that a government job is direct theft of a job from the private sector. And this is a younger crowd. Employers such as Markk's (in addition to knowingly employing illegals) are considered crony capitalists by true neoliberal standards, for all the government contracting they do.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Mon May 26, 2025 4:32 am

On a technical note. I've been surprised at the level of Von Mises worship that's still out there. I've followed (less now) a variety of finance channels since the tariffs, and there are some thoroughly libertarian dudes out there who are actually consistent: they abhor the tariffs but praise the cuts to government. They literally believe that a government job is direct theft of a job from the private sector. And this is a younger crowd. Employers such as Markk's (in addition to knowingly employing illegals) are considered crony capitalists by true neoliberal standards, for all the government contracting they do.

I don't follow finance channels myself though I shouldn't be surprised by the Austrian School doing well there. The OP is, at heart, a reflection of an extreme outcome driven by such views, really. Where it differs is in a matter I've argued before, that free markets, unregulated, do not result in greater freedom in aggregate, but instead the variable access to freedom mainly through concentration. I propose it as the Texas Hold 'Em theory. Inevitably, those who have are more free and less beholden to luck to continue to take from those who have more limited resources and even when luck favors them can be overwhelmed by sheer resource differences.

I should also clarify, Markk didn't use the phrase neoliberalism. Instead, he spoke of being a capitalist then evoked it in expressing what the meant to him, not realizing the aims of neoliberalism are not synonymous with capitalism. Again, it seems much of the thinking for so many folks of a certain age was done when Reagan spoke. Just last week I heard someone mention, "I'm with the government and I'm here to help" as the nine scariest words in the English language. And he was of an age that he likely voted for Reagan.

Issues such as the stagnation of real wage growth from the late 1970s on remain salient concerns, not least of which as we face some of the greatest economic uncertainty, unforced, in decades including from the great recession.