The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Greg Doudna]

Inheritance for All--a visionary idea

Chris B., you have written repeatedly and critically concerning concentrations of wealth at the top end, and said you were seeking solutions that work. I noticed you never offered any specific policy proposal so I thought I might offer something possibly helpful. I wrote:

On 5/22/2022 at 5:49 AM, Greg Doudna said:

On solutions that work, take a look at Piketty's Inheritance for All idea. A stiff inheritance tax starting on estates of over $10 million, graduated rates starting lower up to no higher than 65% top end (Piketty had an argument that top end tax rates should never be higher than 65%, I don't know his argument but he had one), this inheritance tax going not into government general revenue but pass-through to a dedicated fund which would pay out a lump sum to every citizen on their 21st birthday, the same one-time amount that year to every person who came of age that year, the amount recalibrated annually based on how much was in the fund. Something like that, I may not have remembered every detail right. 

Sure some people blow inherited money. But a majority do something productive with it. That is real equalization of opportunity. Capital. Inheritance for All. 

To which you responded that the idea is a non-starter citing economic efficiency grounds--capital flight would result making things worse off than before implementation of the proposal--counterproductive:

On 5/22/2022 at 8:08 AM, Chris Barnard said:

Even if you could close all loopholes and eliminate all avenues for the super wealthy to avoid paying taxes, they’d just take their wealth with them to a country that provided more favourable terms to them. Some of these fatcats own massive businesses that employ thousands, they’d probably move their companies abroad also, and you’d lose the taxation of the employee’s and have an unemployment situation to remedy. 

At present, we face the reality of all wealth falling into the hands of very very few and the rest renting everything. Which actually is tantamount to a form of slavery or serfdom. This is a massive issue that needs resolving. 

You elaborated further on why the Piketty proposal, in the basics as I outlined it, could not work, though you repeat again that you truly, truly are looking for something that would address wealth inequality. Here is the additional reason you gave for why the Piketty Inheritance for All can't work: because the top-end wealthy do not yet individually have enough compassion in their personal hearts. That is a second reason why Inheritance for All funded by a pass-through inheritance tax as a matter of law and the tax code would not work.

On 5/22/2022 at 9:29 AM, Chris Barnard said:

My assessment or reply was based solely on your memory of Piketty’s idea. I can feel your frustration at my reply, I too desire a much more equitable situation for the new generations of my family, friends and the wider world. What you proposed relies on the super-wealthy being compassionate and of a different mindset. My experience tells me that those people want wealth, status and power in perpetuity. Which IMHO makes your memory of Piketty’s idea, incompatible.

And you made clear, if it was not already, that you rejected the idea because you did not think it would work for the two reasons you had given: #1 capital flight, and #2 lack of sufficient personal compassion in the inner hearts of those who would be subject to the tax according to the law: 

On 5/22/2022 at 1:27 PM, Chris Barnard said:

I don't think the idea you suggested from your memory of Piketty would work, for reasons explained earlier.

I love it how conservatives (not necessarily meaning you Chris) always oppose any specific tax at the top end while claiming how very much they really are on the side of the people of the bottom 95% economically. Its just as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise.

But never mind that general comment; economic and policy considerations do have to be looked at case by case. In the present case, you, I assume speaking from some basis in your knowledge and reading, have come to a conclusion: that Inheritance for All as I outlined from Piketty at the rates cited will not work. I would like to set aside the objection to lack of sufficient personal generosity in the individual hearts of the top end (as a rational reason why Congress should not legislate a tax on that top end), and focus solely on your economic argument, or rationale, for turning down the Piketty Inheritance for All idea.

Now to get specific: as I outlined, the numbers are 0% inheritance tax on estates below $10 million; above $10 million an inheritance tax starting in at ca. 30% and rising progressively up to the top end capping out at 65% maximum top-end rate. All of this inheritance tax--100 percent of it in the Piketty proposal--does not go into general government revenue but is pass-through to a dedicated trust fund which pays out once-per-lifetime checks to every citizen, same amount for everyone rich or poor on the receiving end, on their 21st or 25th birthday (Piketty's proposal is actually age 25). In other words, none of it goes to government spending. It is pure partial redistribution of inherited wealth, spreading out some inherited wealth to all persons not simply to those born into super-wealthy families. 

I had mentioned that Piketty had an argument why no top-end tax rate (in any category of tax) should be higher than 65% and I said I did not remember what his argument was on that but that he had one.

I remember now what that argument was, of Piketty's: it was the exact issue you raise, which is that if a tax rate is too high, the ones taxed make alternative economic choices and a tax rate too high actually becomes counterproductive. And Piketty, with a lot of analysis and numbers-crunching, etc. put a number on the highest sweet spot above which that high-end rate will have negative net consequences: 65% at the top end was his number. He argued that was the tipping point maximum number. Not 20% or 50% or 70%, but 65%. 

So Piketty was saying an inheritance tax at 0% below $10 million estates, then 30% to 65% in graduated progressivity capping out at 65% at the top end on inheritance wealth, will NOT result in capital flight. People who are subject to those rates of inheritance taxes, Piketty argued, would not flee their home nation in any large numbers, in the way that might happen if the rate was above 65%.  

Now Piketty may or may not be right on that number, that is an economists' argument. I think most can understand the basic economists' argument that there is some "tipping point" number (at which further raises in tax rates result in lower total revenue and suppression of economic activity), with the uncertainty or debates being over where that tipping-point number is. 

So that is Piketty. Now you disagree. You have rejected the Piketty Inheritance for All proposal funded by a pass-through inheritance tax as outlined. You say a rate of 30% going up to 65% at the top end, on estates over $10 million, will cause significant capital flight, companies moving overseas, etc and etc.

Piketty says at those rates, that will not happen.

You say it would.

Who is right?

Could you elaborate on your data for believing significant capital flight would happen at those rates? Could you estimate (doesn't have to be exact) where you think the actual "tipping point" rate of inheritance tax level would cause significant capital flight at the top end, since you do not agree with Piketty's number? Do you think a 5% inheritance tax at the top end would cause the top-end to move themselves and their businesses overseas? 25%? What is your number? 

Why do you believe the Piketty numbers are wrong, going to the point of the reason you explained why you do not think the idea would work? 

Here is an interview of Piketty on Inheritance for All: https://www.ips-journal.eu/interviews/inheritance-for-all-4207/.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[George Govus]

Regardless of whether Chris gets on board, Greg, I appreciate hearing about Piketty's Inheritance For All proposal. It's a major improvement on the epiphany I had when a teenager, to do with de-linking labor and compensation.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Inheritance for All--a visionary idea

Chris B., you have written repeatedly and critically concerning concentrations of wealth at the top end, and said you were seeking solutions that work. I noticed you never offered any specific policy proposal so I thought I might offer something possibly helpful. I wrote:

To which you responded that the idea is a non-starter citing economic efficiency grounds--capital flight would result making things worse off than before implementation of the proposal--counterproductive:

You elaborated further on why the Piketty proposal, in the basics as I outlined it, could not work, though you repeat again that you truly, truly are looking for something that would address wealth inequality. Here is the additional reason you gave for why the Piketty Inheritance for All can't work: because the top-end wealthy do not yet individually have enough compassion in their personal hearts. That is a second reason why Inheritance for All funded by a pass-through inheritance tax as a matter of law and the tax code would not work.

And you made clear, if it was not already, that you rejected the idea because you did not think it would work for the two reasons you had given: #1 capital flight, and #2 lack of sufficient personal compassion in the inner hearts of those who would be subject to the tax according to the law: 

I love it how conservatives (not necessarily meaning you Chris) always oppose any specific tax at the top end while claiming how very much they really are on the side of the people of the bottom 95% economically. Its just as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise.

But never mind that general comment; economic and policy considerations do have to be looked at case by case. In the present case, you, I assume speaking from some basis in your knowledge and reading, have come to a conclusion: that Inheritance for All as I outlined from Piketty at the rates cited will not work. I would like to set aside the objection to lack of sufficient personal generosity in the individual hearts of the top end (as a rational reason why Congress should not legislate a tax on that top end), and focus solely on your economic argument, or rationale, for turning down the Piketty Inheritance for All idea.

Now to get specific: as I outlined, the numbers are 0% inheritance tax on estates below $10 million; above $10 million an inheritance tax starting in at ca. 30% and rising progressively up to the top end capping out at 65% maximum top-end rate. All of this inheritance tax--100 percent of it in the Piketty proposal--does not go into general government revenue but is pass-through to a dedicated trust fund which pays out once-per-lifetime checks to every citizen, same amount for everyone rich or poor on the receiving end, on their 21st or 25th birthday (Piketty's proposal is actually age 25). In other words, none of it goes to government spending. It is pure partial redistribution of inherited wealth, spreading out some inherited wealth to all persons not simply to those born into super-wealthy families. 

I had mentioned that Piketty had an argument why no top-end tax rate (in any category of tax) should be higher than 65% and I said I did not remember what his argument was on that but that he had one.

I remember now what that argument was, of Piketty's: it was the exact issue you raise, which is that if a tax rate is too high, the ones taxed make alternative economic choices and a tax rate too high actually becomes counterproductive. And Piketty, with a lot of analysis and numbers-crunching, etc. put a number on the highest sweet spot above which that high-end rate will have negative net consequences: 65% at the top end was his number. He argued that was the tipping point maximum number. Not 20% or 50% or 70%, but 65%. 

So Piketty was saying an inheritance tax at 0% below $10 million estates, then 30% to 65% in graduated progressivity capping out at 65% at the top end on inheritance wealth, will NOT result in capital flight. People who are subject to those rates of inheritance taxes, Piketty argued, would not flee their home nation in any large numbers, in the way that might happen if the rate was above 65%.  

Now Piketty may or may not be right on that number, that is an economists' argument. I think most can understand the basic economists' argument that there is some "tipping point" number (at which further raises in tax rates result in lower total revenue and suppression of economic activity), with the uncertainty or debates being over where that tipping-point number is. 

So that is Piketty. Now you disagree. You have rejected the Piketty Inheritance for All proposal funded by a pass-through inheritance tax as outlined. You say a rate of 30% going up to 65% at the top end, on estates over $10 million, will cause significant capital flight, companies moving overseas, etc and etc.

Piketty says at those rates, that will not happen.

You say it would.

Who is right?

Could you elaborate on your data for believing significant capital flight would happen at those rates? Could you estimate (doesn't have to be exact) where you think the actual "tipping point" rate of inheritance tax level would cause significant capital flight at the top end, since you do not agree with Piketty's number? Do you think a 5% inheritance tax at the top end would cause the top-end to move themselves and their businesses overseas? 25%? What is your number? 

Why do you believe the Piketty numbers are wrong, going to the point of the reason you explained why you do not think the idea would work? 

Here is an interview of Piketty on Inheritance for All: https://www.ips-journal.eu/interviews/inheritance-for-all-4207/.

Thanks for your reply, Greg. Sorry, I haven't got back to you sooner, other topics have consumed me and there was a bit of an edge to the way you opened up initially (in my view), which I understand is related to frustration and compassion on your part but, let's let that go. 

Previously I responded to what was your memory of Piketty's idea, you have now kindly supplied further information which helps give a clearer picture. My instincts were right that these people worth fortunes leaving because their taxes are raised is/would be an issue. The wealthy talk to each other, the world is more international or connected than ever, if their taxes are raised or inheritance is too high, they will go. I don't need to make an argument that I am a better or worse economist than Piketty, I work in a different industry entirely. The crux of the matter is; you have people like Trump allegedly paying zero, and the reason he hasn't been hauled across the coals over it is, that it's the constant, not the exception. Lots of people are paying close to zero. The loopholes are in your system and systems around the world, just so wealthy people can do this. You won't change that culture unless your politicians and law makers suddenly become honest, and close the loopholes. At which point these wealthy guys will go elsewhere. This is the way the system works, Grand Cayman, or Guernsey, Singapore, Gibraltar, Monaco, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Luxemburg, the Isle of Man or any of the offshore havens compete with eachother for business, the fat cats go where it is most favourable and now you can add crypto to the mix. If Piketty arrived at 65%, it's probably 60% too much for these guys, they're greedy as hell. It might be a consideration that some of the wealthiest people actually pay not to be on the Forbes list, and their true wealth is unknown publicly. These are the challenges faced, and no decision made by these guys will be linked to compassion. Piketty can be the most credible economist there has ever been, but, do you know how often economists are wrong or way out on their speculative predictions? Let's put it this way; I wouldn't do your trading based on them, you'll be broke. 

This isn't a rational comment IMO:

"Could you elaborate on your data for believing significant capital flight would happen at those rates? Could you estimate (doesn't have to be exact) where you think the actual "tipping point" rate of inheritance tax level would cause significant capital flight at the top end, since you do not agree with Piketty's number? Do you think a 5% inheritance tax at the top end would cause the top-end to move themselves and their businesses overseas? 25%? What is your number?" 

It's the same as me asking you for data showing it would work, it's theory, hypothetical, it's very multi-varied. My expressions in the previous block paragraph adequately explains what is going on right now, making allowances for human nature. If you can save 50 bucks at the supermarket or tavern up the road, you go there, and these guys have been doing that their whole lives when it comes to liabilities, they're into growing assets at the fastest rate possible. 

I have a solution but, it isn't the one you want to hear. Before I elaborate, I would just like to clearly define the following. 

- I understand who you want to tax to pay for this, via the Piketty proposal. 
- Who will be the recipient of these payments? Are you still specifically talking about reparations for slavery? 
- How long will they be necessary for?
- How much per month will be suitable? You can guess, it's fine, just to give us something to work with.

"I love it how conservatives (not necessarily meaning you Chris)"
Please note, this is the second time you have used subtle linguistic choices, paying to the gallery, to try a sort of guilt by association tactic. You have to decide what kind of a conversation you'd like, an honest polite back and forth or something more caustic and devious. I am already conscious that you feel on the back foot in the previous exchanges, which is why you've chased this with a second consecutive message. I would hope that this is important to you for moral reasons, as opposed to ego and vanity. It's really your choice as to how it will go. 








 

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm for an Inheritance for All.

I don't see any reason why people should be allowed to pass their billions of dollars along to descendants. Doing that ultimately results in a two-class society. And the wealthy class will always be the ruling class given that they can buy politicians and Supreme Court justices.

I say let the kids have no more than 50 million dollars each and give the rest to the citizens. Institute a guest worker program so that there will be somebody to do the work that (spoiled) Americans won't do.

I think that there are probably ways to keep the ultra-wealthy from taking their cash and investments to other countries. How about naming important buildings after those who do stay here? I'll bet that recognition would be more important to them than making their descendants wealthy.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Chris; I am already conscious that you feel on the back foot in the previous exchanges, which is why you've chased this with a second consecutive message

Stop bloviating Chris. He's only chasing you because you didn't give him a direct answer to his question,  which you yourself admitted on the onset . As you've evaded any question I've asked you for months about any solutions you propose,

While  I can understand some hesitancy in getting in the weeds with Greg's about his comprehensive proposals.You've set yourself up as some prophet of doom here, and you run away from proposing any real solutions. It''s time to show your cards. Do you really have any comprehensive idea, or any real ideas of your own? Let's hear them.  What do you got?

Edited May 25, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Chris; I am already conscious that you feel on the back foot in the previous exchanges, which is why you've chased this with a second consecutive message

Stop bloviating Chris. He's only chasing you because you didn't give him a direct answer to his question,  which you yourself admitted on the onset . As you've evaded any question I've asked you for months about any solutions you propose,

While  I can understand some hesitancy in getting in the weeds with Greg's about his comprehensive proposals.You've set yourself up as some prophet of doom here, and you run away from proposing any real solutions. It''s time to show your cards. Do you really have any comprehensive idea, or any real ideas of your own? Let's hear them.  What do you got?

Welcome to the conversation. 🙂  You know more about running than David Goggins, haha.

Just been busy lately, plenty to reply to on various platforms, as well as work, social, it'll be like that until late October etc. What is funny is; I reply and you get all bent out of shape, telling me I don't have to reply to every comment. Then I don't reply and I am somehow out of answers according to you. You can't have it both ways, put your thinking cap on. 

Rather than your usual deceitful attacks, why not just join the conversation, Kirk.

Are you for equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Do you have a solution for the victims of slavery and legacy caused? If you don't have an idea, that's ok, it's a pretty hard thing to solve in America. 

Cheers. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Exactly what I thought.  No solutions until October,Chris???? heh  heh  But hours to spend everyday on your favorite conspiracy website?

We'll be waiting with bated breathe!

Case closed

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Are you for equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Do you have a solution for the victims of slavery and legacy caused? If you don't have an idea, that's ok, it's a pretty hard thing to solve in America. 

No reply then buddy. Hardly surprising. When was the last time you actually put forward a thread? 🙂
 

8 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Exactly what I thought.  No solutions until October,Chris???? heh  heh  But hours to spend everyday on your favorite conspiracy website?

We'll be waiting with bated breathe!

Case closed

Quite an infantile reply from someone who must be pushing 75 isn't it? I get on the forum when I have a moment, I do enjoy it, I actually think there have been some fantastic threads of late. Unfortunately, I am not retired like some, gotta pay the bills and embrace life while I am still young enough, it's a crime to waste it. I am sure you understand, you were young once. 

[Paul Brancato]

18 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

No reply then buddy. Hardly surprising. When was the last time you actually put forward a thread? 🙂
 

Quite an infantile reply from someone who must be pushing 75 isn't it? I get on the forum when I have a moment, I do enjoy it, I actually think there have been some fantastic threads of late. Unfortunately, I am not retired like some, gotta pay the bills and embrace life while I am still young enough, it's a crime to waste it. I am sure you understand, you were young once. 

Chris, Greg, Kirk, anyone reading:

one observation I have is that talking about specific details as to how this kind of wealth distribution would work best seems counterproductive. Why not just find out if people agree, as Sandy said, that something like this is a good idea. I have been thinking thus way my whole life, and these days it seems really obvious. Taxing the rich does not help the poor or middle class, because putting more money in government coffers is no guarantee that anything good will come of it. Do I like that part of the Picketty plan that Greg enumerates? Yes, though 65% seems arbitrary no matter what his credentials are, and arguing about it is futile. I would observe that it’s pretty close to the Golden Mean, a number I like and find useful in many ways. But that might not be relevant. 
to you Chris, I very much appreciate your perspective. It’s radical - often - but unlike Kirk I don’t find it easy to characterize where on this political left right spectrum you sit, nor do I care. At this point I think that the paradigm is useless. Yes I come from a Communist background, but liberals, Democrats, have largely failed to do anything useful, even if I align myself in that direction. I’m with George Carlin on this - I’m sickened by nearly everything coming out of Washington, and refuse to be bought off by social issues where I clearly agree with one side vs the other but find my side unable to put these issues to rest, so much so that I am now questioning deeply their honesty as politicians. I find myself strangely agreeing with Kissinger when he suggests that Ukraine should cede territory. It’s a heck of a lot better than continuing the war, and not just for the suffering Ukrainians but for the rest of the planet. I don’t know what the source is for your latest essay but find myself agreeing with it a lot, and I think it perhaps takes some courage to post it when you know how many will find it distasteful. If I put that on Facebook my friends would lambast me for it. 
Kirk - you’re a good guy - lighten up a bit and be more open to exchange of ideas without shooting the messenger. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Paul Brancato

[Greg Doudna]

Chris, I thought I explained it clearly but maybe not. Below in bold caps see answers to your questions which I hope will clarify.

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I have a solution but, it isn't the one you want to hear. Before I elaborate, I would just like to clearly define the following. 
- I understand who you want to tax to pay for this, via the Piketty proposal. 
- Who will be the recipient of these payments? EVERY U.S. CITIZEN. Are you still specifically talking about reparations for slavery? NO.
- How long will they be necessary for? MAYBE 3 SECONDS.
- How much per month will be suitable? You can guess, it's fine, just to give us something to work with. $0.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Ron Bulman]

I like to think somehow most of my posts on this thread somehow relate to how we have gotten from JFK's assassination to where we are today in the USA. JFK was an inspiring Democratic speaker.  I find this lady inspiring in this instance.  Stereotyping based on her hair I wonder if she might share some Irish heritage with him.

Watch the youtube video, which does not include a reported standing ovation at the end, and, read the Guardian interview/article about why.

 

 The ‘straight, white, Christian, suburban mom’ taking on Republicans at their own game (msn.com)

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Chris, I thought I explained it clearly but maybe not. Below in bold caps see answers to your questions which I hope will clarify.

 

Actually, you're right, Greg, I was confused and looking for clarity because your initial post was addressing mostly race related (the equality of opportunity reply). The subsequent posts do indicate every citizen. In which case, I am with you, as if you just isolate one group for reparations and don't do it for others, I think at this stage it would tear your nation apart. 

I have outlined how I don't think your method (or Piketty's) will work in terms of raising the capital, unless many things change or are remedied. That's not me being a black cloud of negativity, it's be being a realist. 

Where we agree is on equality of opportunity for all. No nepotism, no leg ups, no rigged game for one class. Everyone gets a fair shake. It isn't possible to do that perfectly, only to make it as fair as possible. Even if you furnish all with capital, it still doesn't buy you the best education or tuition. What it does do is vastly improves things for the many, compared with today. I am not thinking we'd get utopia, just a big improvement. 

IMHO Every impoverished area needs looking at, a plan needs putting in place, and cash needs throwing at it. Crime needs to be virtually eliminated, living conditions dramatically improved, affordable healthcare, zero tolerance on racism or religious hatred, take colour out of the equation, we must strive so that all are looked upon as equal human beings. We need an overhaul of the education system, so that it is geared toward a better society and humans that are self sufficient, less state dependant. Psychologists and support must be available free for anyone who has issues, and schools must be looking for issues in pupils. There should be no shame in that process, it should be normalised. We need to be turning out balanced human beings, and to resolve the hate, and bad feeling created by past injustices. There are so many people affected by race issues, they need to be healed. America has spent fortunes on unjust foreign policy and more recently pharmaceutical rackets, wasting taxes, funnelling ever more money upwards. This money should have been spent on the citizens of America, rebuilding community, infrastructure and making things more equal. This tells a story about who your political class are; there is very little profit in sorting Detroit, there is huge monies in war abroad, that's the cold reality. It's corruption and nobody gets punished, there are many victims.

With your plan for reparations for all (which I like the idea of, even if we disagree on financing), what needs to be done is to ensure that there is a full financial education given to the recipients before they receive the money. If that is not done, the money just ends up back in the hands of the elites in a blink. Your schooling doesn't teach people about money, managing finances or how to make it work for you. It leaves the average person with a deficiency which results in them falling into debt when they leave school, which means they then fall into a form or serfdom or financial slavery, ie they end up in debt for life with banks milking them, and poverty when they can't make payments. The people being paid reparations end up back to square one. Remember, these are the people suffering from addictions, everything from sugar to class A drugs, or prescription meds. The temptation upon receiving the payment will be to splurge on the things they have been without. You don't want them spending on the superficial things that they see marketed on TV, you want the money to last them and take care of priorities, that give them a better platform to succeed. There needs to be education on this.

If your MSM is carrying on with this divide and rule content, which splits the population into tribes, you have zero hope of eliminating poverty and attaining a cohesive, functional society, where there a much truer equality than we have seen previously. The same goes for the politicians, stop polarising and amplifying small things as per the population and making them seem like they are the status quo. The fabric of society is being destroyed by politicians and the media, this culture needs to change. 

In summary, government needs to stop misspending and monies need to be directed at resolving the above issues. I am pro a lump sum, education and support must accompany it, if it is to succeed. We all want something better, in truth it isn't much to ask, Greg. I think some of this illustrates that it's a difficult task and a lot needs to be done. We should try. 

Chris







 


 

[Sandy Larsen]

55 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

 

 

Wow. I hope she runs for president some day.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

But that might not be relevant. 
to you Chris, I very much appreciate your perspective. It’s radical - often - but unlike Kirk I don’t find it easy to characterize where on this political left right spectrum you sit, nor do I care.

Thank you. If I was twenty, I would probably have said I am a conservative, but, we only really have two parties to vote for in the UK and the other was tragic. Also at 20 your mind isn't fully formed, you are light on experience. I wouldn't say I identify with either now, they seem like counterpoints to each other, equally corrupt. I think reading history and trying to make sense of it, makes me feel more and more liberal in a traditional sense. You're quite correct, it really is redundant trying to put people in these groupings today. It's mostly done to slur these days. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

I find myself strangely agreeing with Kissinger when he suggests that Ukraine should cede territory. It’s a heck of a lot better than continuing the war, and not just for the suffering Ukrainians but for the rest of the planet.

I am still very pro detente and rapprochement. The suffering is great and it's the ordinary people everywhere that pay the costs and feel the tremendous strain. 

 

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t know what the source is for your latest essay but find myself agreeing with it a lot, and I think it perhaps takes some courage to post it when you know how many will find it distasteful. If I put that on Facebook my friends would lambast me for it. 

It's Tom Luongo who does the Gold, Goats and Guns podcast/website. For some reason the articles of this type are only on a PDF, which I can't link here. A friend whatsapp's me them. I'll get the source and come back to you, as they are much nicer to read on the PDF. I don't quite agree with all of Tom's outlook, there are various things that lead me and others to the conclusion that this conflict may not be quite what it seems, ie the purpose/objective. 

I don't mind being the black sheep. There is a quote by Marcus Aurelius that goes a little like: "your objective should not be to find yourself on the side of the masses, only to avoid finding yourself among the ranks of the insane." I think he probably understood all this, there is a balance. TBH here its very tame. Facebook is another matter entirely, it's a warzone. You have to tread on broken glass, tip toe around peoples emotions and its a thankless task shedding light on things that seem a little esoteric. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Yes I come from a Communist background, but liberals, Democrats, have largely failed to do anything useful, even if I align myself in that direction. I’m with George Carlin on this - I’m sickened by nearly everything coming out of Washington, and refuse to be bought off by social issues where I clearly agree with one side vs the other but find my side unable to put these issues to rest, so much so that I am now questioning deeply their honesty as politicians.

I find you very fair, unassuming and you obviously think deeply and freely on such issues. With backgrounds, I went to private and state schools, I played a range of sports with people of all backgrounds and perhaps most importantly, we always had foreign students in the house, living with us, when I was a child. Sometimes three at once, every meal time my father would encourage discussions on history, current affairs and for us to learn as much as possible from the foreigners we had staying with us. I think as small boys, my brother and I learned so much listening and asking questions, more than we could perhaps have done at school. The people staying with us always felt comfortable, and free to express opinions, we always met them with smiles and my father was warm and gregarious. My father was a conformist in many ways, a creative type crushed by doing mundane work, but, he had a very keen interest in history and knew of a fair bit of corruption. It was enough to make my brother and I question everything, I feel like that was somehow in my nature, anyway, a way of learning for me. If things don't make logical sense, I can never really accept them. I am conscious that any of us can be wrong about some things but, that instincts are very important, we often ignore them to our detriment. Since being self employed, I have had the luxury of time to think and read a lot, and I believe if others had the time, they'd perhaps see the world differently, and come to different conclusions. We can't have a balanced perspective of what we are entirely immersed in, only when we step back, we can see a bigger picture. I have been very fortunate to experience life in some other cultures and I think it's perhaps given me more balance than the average British view. Regarding America, I may not live there, but, I also have no skin in the political game like most living there do. 

[Ron Bulman]

It's obviously not just Texas though we have the most Liberal gun laws in the country, given the meaning of the word.

Student Brings Gun to Washington Elementary School, Shows Classmates (msn.com)