• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit 2024

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
18,810
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist

Two of the most prominent russian stooges (you would call) "debating" each other. A clown on the left could be one of you guys, completely clueless and idiotic.
I have to say I am with Jeffrey Sachs.
Funny how Sachs mentions that Nuland is (now) at the same University as he. That must make happy hours very awkward :D
 
That's like watching a debate between a spoiled brat and a mama’s boy. They weren’t disagreeing on principles, the divide is that one is used to controlling the narrative, while the other won't take control without checking with mommy first.
 

Two of the most prominent russian stooges (you would call) "debating" each other. A clown on the left could be one of you guys, completely clueless and idiotic.
I have to say I am with Jeffrey Sachs.
Funny how Sachs mentions that Nuland is (now) at the same University as he. That must make happy hours very awkward :D


How about you summarize what is in the video? I believe that is required here, as opposed to random insults and name-calling.
 
Let’s see, calling posters here who disagree with you (almost everyone) “clueless” and “idiotic.” Hmm. :unsure:
 
Mearsheimer is arguing how US foreign Polices can lead to war and Sachs is arguing how things should be in order to avoid war. Mearsheimer stated he agrees with Sachs argument and Sachs agrees with Mearsheimer argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

wheres-the-beef-burger-king.gif
 
Yet they both remain wrong, unless Sachs advocates for an end to Capitalism, which, I imagine, one of you would have mentioned in your descriptions of their positions.

They do not really want to take responsibility for Capitalism, or for the Capitalist requirement for slavery, war, ecocide, genocide, and other predatory behaviors by those who hoard "wealth," so they can sustain their desire for the power associated with "wealth."

Shrug. Richies gonna rich. What are we gonna do, try to end coveting? haha
 
I don’t think capitalism, socialism, or any other 'ism' is the core issue. The problem lies in how nations compete and interact with each other. Wealth becomes a source of conflict in any system when those in power, intentionally or not, push past boundaries to obtain it. Human nature drives us to form groups, and over time, some of these groups have evolved into nuclear superpowers. The real danger arises when one group starts to believe it’s entitled to something at the expense of others—whether it’s for ideology, resources, or power. That is what leads to atrocities like genocide, slavery, and war. Everyday people just want to live simple lives, but the snowball group of people we've entrusted with power has turned into a massive iceberg that's threatening to sink us all.
 
Yet they both remain wrong, unless Sachs advocates for an end to Capitalism, which, I imagine, one of you would have mentioned in your descriptions of their positions.

They do not really want to take responsibility for Capitalism, or for the Capitalist requirement for slavery, war, ecocide, genocide, and other predatory behaviors by those who hoard "wealth," so they can sustain their desire for the power associated with "wealth."

Shrug. Richies gonna rich. What are we gonna do, try to end coveting? haha

Capitalistic countries that are generally democratic rarely attack other countries; and very rarely attack other democracies. Russia and China are dictatorships.
 
Yet they both remain wrong, unless Sachs advocates for an end to Capitalism, which, I imagine, one of you would have mentioned in your descriptions of their positions.

They do not really want to take responsibility for Capitalism, or for the Capitalist requirement for slavery, war, ecocide, genocide, and other predatory behaviors by those who hoard "wealth," so they can sustain their desire for the power associated with "wealth."

Shrug. Richies gonna rich. What are we gonna do, try to end coveting? haha

Capitalistic countries that are generally democratic rarely attack other countries; and very rarely attack other democracies. Russia and China are dictatorships.

Capitalist countries often outsource their 'dirty work' to other nations, distancing themselves from direct involvement. Just because they don't physically have the blood on their hands doesn’t mean they aren't an accessory.
 
I don’t think capitalism, socialism, or any other 'ism' is the core issue. The problem lies in how nations
Wait! Here is where "we" are wrong!

Nations! WHY. We don't actually need nations and borders. As humans who are capable of thinking and solving problems, even problems that exist due to our very humanity, tribalism, and seeking evolutionary advantage, we do not actually need nations or the power structures that support them.

When I say "Capitalism is 'the' problem," I am using the language of the audience I expect when I say it. It's far too simplistic to be totally accurate, however, I believe I can support most of my assertions, using such examples as Henry Ford.

I do desire to engage with thoughtful people who may have more and different language and viewpoints, in order to more accurately express myself. I have Alexithymia, and often can't articulate myself, which is just one reason why my language is so plain.

Nothing that we say here will result in anything at all. That said, I persist in my belief that the word "Capitalism" is the most appropriate word to use in most discussions about the main reason why things are the way they are.

If anyone here has another word to use that more precisely represents the system that exists, the one word above "Capitalism" that explains the principles and purposes of the existing forces that govern all of us, worldwide, please tell me the word.

"The" problem is human nature and the innate drive of the survival instinct that I think exists in all living things. If I am mistaken, and living things lack a survival drive, perhaps you need to inform the scientists about your alternative hypothesis regarding why things live. I trusted my education on evolutionary theory up to this point, and I think I'm right. Living beings seek survival; why not call it "the selfish gene"? Maybe a solid scientist can confirm or refute such a concept.

I am well aware that my statement, "Capitalism is the problem," is a huge simplification of "the" "problem," yet, what other name exists to label and describe the powers that be, and the system that we use? Is there another name for it? Maybe I don't know what other people mean when they tell me that the name of our political and economic system is "Capitalism." It's "your" word, am I not using it correctly?

I believe that I can demonstrate validity to my extremely reductive claim, while acknowledging its inaccuracy. I furthermore believe that I am absolutely correct regarding the reasons for the existence of such things as slavery and human suffering. I attribute this to "Capitalism" because it is the current name of the primary driver of the circumstances that exist in our whole entire world.

Am I wrong? Did the economists and academics all agree on a different word?

People are people, and people are more like their chimpanzee ancestors than their bonobo ancestors. People have established such structures as religions and races and countries and nationalities in order to not only survive, but to satisfy their innate biological needs. The structures that humans created, that we as aware, thinking human people currently strive to maintain, in order to allegedly protect ourselves from each other and the world we try to live in, are, I think, correctly bundled up in one big selfish and greedy concept that we currently understand as being called Capitalism.

Maybe one day, someone will come along to complain about the existence of money, the lack of food and resources, the folly of focusing too much time on rules and laws, the impropriety of piety, and the need for healthcare, family, and community. Maybe their actions would be considered miraculous, if they were effective.

You folks can go on with your nations nonsense, but to me, nations only exist due to Capitalism, so, why would we try to shift the blame to the things that are the actual results and outcomes of the thing I just said was the problem? I refer to outcomes and circumstances that are objectively observable to most aware people.

Is there a bigger system of worldwide governance that you know a name of? I need to know it, please help me hone my talking points. Thank you!
 
Note on bonobos: It has recently been found that they are violent after all, and male bonobos kill more rivals from other tribes than chimps do.
 
Yet they both remain wrong, unless Sachs advocates for an end to Capitalism, which, I imagine, one of you would have mentioned in your descriptions of their positions.

They do not really want to take responsibility for Capitalism, or for the Capitalist requirement for slavery, war, ecocide, genocide, and other predatory behaviors by those who hoard "wealth," so they can sustain their desire for the power associated with "wealth."

Shrug. Richies gonna rich. What are we gonna do, try to end coveting? haha

Capitalistic countries that are generally democratic rarely attack other countries; and very rarely attack other democracies. Russia and China are dictatorships.

Capitalist countries often outsource their 'dirty work' to other nations, distancing themselves from direct involvement. Just because they don't physically have the blood on their hands doesn’t mean they aren't an accessory.
Good point. Could you give me some recent examples. Would you agree that the two most imperialist countries today are Russia and China?

I think that promoting capitalism and democracy will lead to less war and imperialism. The war in Russia dramatically hurt the world economy. War is not good for the economy. Long term, Russia’s invasion has doomed their economy.
 
Last edited:
Mearsheimer is arguing how US foreign Polices can lead to war and Sachs is arguing how things should be in order to avoid war. Mearsheimer stated he agrees with Sachs argument and Sachs agrees with Mearsheimer argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They both sound incredibly naive about dictators, especially Putin. Putin, despite what he's doing in Ukraine, shouldn't be worried about. Our bigger problem is China.

Sachs (the guy who worked for Russia) says the same as Barbos that Russia doesn't want NATO on it's border in Ukraine. There was very little talk about NATO and Ukraine prior to Russia's invasion. The major talks with Ukraine were economic and trade partnerships, not NATO. But instead of saying "Hey, we want some of that too." as Russia did prior to Putin, seemingly fairly successfully, Putin used NATO expansion as an excuse to invade in 2014.

I will say that the video Babs posted is an interesting video and is well worth the watch. Thanks for posting it, Babs.
 
I don’t think capitalism, socialism, or any other 'ism' is the core issue. The problem lies in how nations
Wait! Here is where "we" are wrong!

Nations! WHY. We don't actually need nations and borders. As humans who are capable of thinking and solving problems, even problems that exist due to our very humanity, tribalism, and seeking evolutionary advantage, we do not actually need nations or the power structures that support them.

When I say "Capitalism is 'the' problem," I am using the language of the audience I expect when I say it. It's far too simplistic to be totally accurate, however, I believe I can support most of my assertions, using such examples as Henry Ford.

I do desire to engage with thoughtful people who may have more and different language and viewpoints, in order to more accurately express myself. I have Alexithymia, and often can't articulate myself, which is just one reason why my language is so plain.

Nothing that we say here will result in anything at all. That said, I persist in my belief that the word "Capitalism" is the most appropriate word to use in most discussions about the main reason why things are the way they are.

If anyone here has another word to use that more precisely represents the system that exists, the one word above "Capitalism" that explains the principles and purposes of the existing forces that govern all of us, worldwide, please tell me the word.

"The" problem is human nature and the innate drive of the survival instinct that I think exists in all living things. If I am mistaken, and living things lack a survival drive, perhaps you need to inform the scientists about your alternative hypothesis regarding why things live. I trusted my education on evolutionary theory up to this point, and I think I'm right. Living beings seek survival; why not call it "the selfish gene"? Maybe a solid scientist can confirm or refute such a concept.

I am well aware that my statement, "Capitalism is the problem," is a huge simplification of "the" "problem," yet, what other name exists to label and describe the powers that be, and the system that we use? Is there another name for it? Maybe I don't know what other people mean when they tell me that the name of our political and economic system is "Capitalism." It's "your" word, am I not using it correctly?

I believe that I can demonstrate validity to my extremely reductive claim, while acknowledging its inaccuracy. I furthermore believe that I am absolutely correct regarding the reasons for the existence of such things as slavery and human suffering. I attribute this to "Capitalism" because it is the current name of the primary driver of the circumstances that exist in our whole entire world.

Am I wrong? Did the economists and academics all agree on a different word?

People are people, and people are more like their chimpanzee ancestors than their bonobo ancestors. People have established such structures as religions and races and countries and nationalities in order to not only survive, but to satisfy their innate biological needs. The structures that humans created, that we as aware, thinking human people currently strive to maintain, in order to allegedly protect ourselves from each other and the world we try to live in, are, I think, correctly bundled up in one big selfish and greedy concept that we currently understand as being called Capitalism.

Maybe one day, someone will come along to complain about the existence of money, the lack of food and resources, the folly of focusing too much time on rules and laws, the impropriety of piety, and the need for healthcare, family, and community. Maybe their actions would be considered miraculous, if they were effective.

You folks can go on with your nations nonsense, but to me, nations only exist due to Capitalism, so, why would we try to shift the blame to the things that are the actual results and outcomes of the thing I just said was the problem? I refer to outcomes and circumstances that are objectively observable to most aware people.

Is there a bigger system of worldwide governance that you know a name of? I need to know it, please help me hone my talking points. Thank you!

Nations as political entities predate capitalism by centuries. Nation-states formed for various reasons—tribalism, geographic boundaries, defense, and religion—long before capitalism as we know it existed. While capitalism might contribute to issues like wealth inequality and exploitation, human nature and power dynamics existed in other systems like feudalism, mercantilism, and socialism too. Slavery existed long before capitalism and continues today in non-capitalist regimes. I believe capitalism enabled certain forms of exploitation, like the transatlantic slave trade, but it's not the root cause of human suffering across all eras and systems.

Capitalism is primarily an economic system, not a system of governance. Governance is typically managed by political structures (democracies, monarchies, etc.), while capitalism is one way those governments choose to manage their economies.

Lastly humans, unlike other animals, have the capacity for cooperation and altruism. Our economic and political systems are shaped by both our selfish and cooperative tendencies.

Edit: That kind of felt like an unfair generalization about animals, since many species actually do cooperate. What I’m trying to say is a bit more complex and would probably take a lot more explanation—definitely more than I can easily summarize without writing a whole book.
 
Oh, and Janice, I think the word we're really looking for is 'selfishness.' Selfishness is the root cause of humanity’s problems across all systems—whether in government or economic practices. It’s behind the conflicts and inequalities we see, no matter what framework we operate under.
 
You mean the guy that actually worked for Russians?
Nuland actually worked for russians too. But good effort to smear the world renowned economist and expert who advised countless governments.
And you, look at you! You talked to a russian. So report yourself to FBI.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom