U.K. Cuts Back Gov't Expenses

[Lloyd DeMause]

The U.K. has cut back expenses hugely and fired millions. It will
certainly
go into a major Depression. As Tony Blair said when asked why he hit
his one-year-old baby: "You have to discipline them!"
Lloyd

[James Sturges]

The U.K has unveiled a new National Security Strategy this week --- mostly about cuts in defense spending, and making sure that future efforts are tied to specific national interests and defense goals. It seems hard to argue with this.  The U.S. needs to do the same thing. -------Jim --- On Thu, 10/21/10, Lloyd DeMause <psyc...@tiac.net> wrote:

--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group. To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohistory+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/realpsychohistory?hl=en.

[Florian Galler]

What a difference to France and the French Unions. The conserrvative
Sarkozy government wants to raise the retirement age from 60 years to
62. French Unions reply which huge strikes. They strongly disapprove
the raise of the retirement age pointing to the deterioraterd income
distribution and saying because of more demanding working conditions
people are not able to work 2 more years before retiring. While a
majority of the French population is approving the actions of the
Unions they also think it is necessary to put the pension systems back
to financial stability.

Florian

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

You may all have read it already, but here's Paul Krugman on the
cutbacks:


Both the new British budget announced on Wednesday and the rhetoric
that accompanied the announcement might have come straight from the
desk of Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary who told President
Herbert Hoover to fight the Depression by liquidating the farmers,
liquidating the workers, and driving down wages. Or if you prefer more
British precedents, it echoes the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried
to restore confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis.

The British government’s plan is bold, say the pundits — and so it is.
But it boldly goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would cut
government employment by 490,000 workers — the equivalent of almost
three million layoffs in the United States — at a time when the
private sector is in no position to provide alternative employment. It
would slash spending at a time when private demand isn’t at all ready
to take up the slack.

Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to
do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to
downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there
is no alternative.

Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the
government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a
shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan,
George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given
up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would
have positive effects on employment and growth.

Instead, it was all about the apocalypse looming if Britain failed to
go down this route. Never mind that British debt as a percentage of
national income is actually below its historical average; never mind
that British interest rates stayed low even as the nation’s budget
deficit soared, reflecting the belief of investors that the country
can and will get its finances under control. Britain, declared Mr.
Osborne, was on the “brink of bankruptcy.” (NYT, 21 October)

[James Sturges]

Krugman certainly gives a needed point of view, an important counterpoint to the cracker-barrel economics still taught and believed by, presumably, most people in the world (or at least America) that are paying attention at all. However, whenever I read his work --- and I do enjoy it --- I am usually struck by the observation that he conveniently leaves off an essential part of his neo-Keynesian argument. That point is that the reason the U.S. can get away with heavy deficits, and heavier trade deficits, is because of our military control of MidEast oil.  As long as this remains in effect, the excess dollars can be exported overseas and other countries, particularly China and Japan, are obliged to accept them -- as OPEC oil is sold for dollars. Thus those excess dollars can be buried in the desert sand, i.e., recycled by Arab elites into Dubai skyscrapers or Saudi Rolls Royces, or sent more directly back to the U.S. in purchase of low interest Government notes and bonds, and high priced U.S. stocks. The U.S. military control of the oceans is a key part of this. If China were to get too horsey about accepting the diminishing-value US dollars, the U.S. Navy could shut off China's oil supply at will.  This may sound drastic, but the step was actually carried out, very successfully against Japan (before Pearl Harbor!), and has been hinted at as recently as this year in the currency disputes between the countries. There are a couple of problems with continuation of this neocon wet dream, of course. One is the possibility that U.S. deficits and debt hit a tipping point, where the dollar actually collapses.  contemporary Kondratiev wave theory would suggest (according to some professional interpreters) that the hyperinflation danger is still at least a couple of decades away.  The other challenge is the mysterious potential that MidEast Oil depletion takes effect sooner rather than later.  When/if this occurs, the grand strategy of the U.S. will have the rug pulled out from under it. Oh yes ... I do recall that this discussion is about the U.K.  But the U.K. banking system is joined at the hip with the U.S., as are its petrol industry and military affairs. Thus, it should be OK, economically, as long as the U.S. dominance holds out. In theory, alternative or renewable energy sources could also affect the world balance of power, but none of these appears to be close to unseating petroleum at the present time. --------Jim --- On Fri, 10/22/10, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

James, Krugman is the only advanced psychoclass (or at least very
near) economist I'm aware of; as such he doesn't for me so much offer
a "counterpoint" as he does the main line argument. Leave it to the
regressing others to chip in/at, here and there.

Brits wouldn't continue to get away (naughty! naughty!) with heavy
deficits if they could: those in charge are right now responding to
the overall desire for a depression to be ensured through tight money
policies. If the Brits were in a wholly different mood, even if it
wasn't through borrowing, they'd find some way to make sure they
didn't waste away a whole generation in a 20-year-long chill.

Patrick

[James Sturges]

Patrick, this reasoning is totally circular.  Unless you have access to information about the early childhoods of Krugman and other economists, then you are simply NOT permitted to make assumptions about psychoclass based solely upon observations of the adult. What you have done (not the first on this list to commit this error, BTW) is to start with a theory that less coercive childrearing leads to  some desirable personality outcomes for adults, and then turned its on its head by asserting that anyone you agree with must have had such a childhood.  This is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, and is actually vacuous of meaningful content. Not to mention that my discussion was about the role of geopolitics in the world's economic reality, not about political leanings of Krugman or anyone else. -------Jim

--- On Sat, 10/23/10, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: U.K. Cuts Back Gov't Expenses To: "realpsychohistory" <realpsyc...@googlegroups.com>

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

Re: Unless you have access to information about the early childhoods

of Krugman and other economists, then you are simply NOT permitted to
make assumptions about psychoclass based solely upon observations of
the adult.

(James, if I'm not sane, don't bother reading what I've uncovered
about someone's childhood. If I'm sane, focus on what I've observed
from sheer experience of the living presence of the thing. Circular,
square, linear -- whatever; it's true.)


We of the advanced psychoclass recognize one another. There is warmth
and sanity in Krugman, chill or at least repression in most others
(i.e., "crazyness"). From the adult formation, you know the origins.
I do. You can't win an argument with someone who wants to convince
you that Obama, for example, is high psychoclass through their
studious digging away at his childhood, because these people are
intent to make what is so readily before you for assessment ("I'm
right here, guys -- on friggin' Oprah, for heaven's sakes. No
historical figure, me") something to be trumped by what they feel they
are in position to put a smothering control on. When Lloyd was in
mood to convince us that Obama is well loved -- capital "P" progress
-- you couldn't counter by showing how evidently uncomfortable he was
sitting beside Hillary during the campaign (he always seemed to turn
away from her, drawing back from her maternal thighs; a boy who knew
what it was to cower before mama -- and often) -- that is, by pointing
at the obvious -- you couldn't effectively counter at all, because he
oriented on a particular uncovering of his childhood as "true proof,"
one he could count on (with he himself being silent on this one) being
defended as unassailable not merely by the here-and-there Obama-
rejoicing psychohistorians, not merely by the wall of the type of
timid liberal historians he has spend a lifetime lampooning and being
lampooned by, but by the Historical Enterprise itself. "What is your
lone opinion, intuition, against this mass of adult, authoritative
research and evidence, young man?" ("But sir, if I can't read him
well now, what makes you think I'll focus well on what is offered up
from his childhood past?" "Does anything you've ever written say
different?") This was Lloyd of recent past, as he leveraged History
in its sense as the most conservative and repressive of studies, as an
abode of monastic, professional stewardship / control, as he smacked
of everything he has spent a lifetime lashing out at.

On a related note. One of the great things about psychohistory is how
wonderfully hippie anti-authoritarian it can be. Some Phd launches at
you with tombs of research, and contends that you can't even begin
until you plumbed somewhere near equal. The advanced psychoclass
lounger responds by lamenting that the Phd didn't spend all that time
in nurturing therapy, so s/he could have commenced the whole
enterprise in a spirit closer approximating sanity ("In short, I'm not
really quite sure you've even begun, sir." "That is, it's probably on
the mark to say that once I begin sentence one, I'm already ahead of
your library of time with the thing.").

Patrick

[rachel stoltenberg]

Patrick said "We of the advanced psychoclass recognize one another.  There is warmth

and sanity in Krugman, chill or at least repression in most others
(i.e., "crazyness"). "

 

 

Problem is, every one knows that they're right.  Good luck finding some one who really believes that they are crazy, wrong and out of touch.  These crazy, chilling, repressed folks you mention know, like you, that they are correct.  Why, they can just feel it.

Rachel

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

With my sense of (at least current times) America, Rachel, I'd have
been more convinced if you'd argued that most everyone deep-down
thinks they're shit, that they probably don't deserve to be happy
(they've got their maternal alters to thank for that), only that
hippie-types who hope they might be / deserve otherwise, and the poor
and vulnerable who publicly demonstrate their very own shameworthy
neediness and dependency, are so much more rotten than they are. Once
on crusade against them, in service to the desires of the Maternal
Master rather than to themselves ... yeah, they might own up to
feeling pretty righteous; I'll grant you that. But in reality these
monsters are FEEDING, not so much feeling -- that's what their would-
be food, us hippie-type, emotionally healthy, advanced-class hipsters,
do. You know it.

Patrick

[rachel stoltenberg]

Patrick said, "I'd have

been more convinced if you'd argued that most everyone deep-down
thinks they're shit, that they probably don't deserve to be happy"

 

 

Well, yes.  But now you seem to be suggesting that low self regard can't exist with an inflated self image in the same person, or that this has something to do with being convinced of a certain worldview - any world view.  The point stands: everybody thinks they're right.  The person with low or no self regard has still convinved themselves.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have the beliefs or think the thoughts that they do. 

 

This is veering into philosophy 101.  Sturges, I think, was pointing out, not so gently, that you were skipping the most important steps and assuming too much.  That somehow, a group called They has this problem called not being self aware enough, but you don't need to be.  Because you're right.  No big deal as this is a mistake we all make, maybe the easiest one to make - and I would guess, the main reason this particular online group exists. 

 

 

 

Patrick

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group.
To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohist...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/realpsychohistory?hl=en.

--

Rachel e. Stoltenberg 
cell (907) 942  5888
home & fax  (907)  486  0390

 

This e mail address was once "hacked" by a virus like faux Gmail phisher that scans address books for more addresses for spamming.  If you ever have or do get weird messages or forwards from this e mail address, they aren't from me. 

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

re: Problem is, every one knows that they're right. Good luck

finding some one
who really believes that they are crazy, wrong and out of touch.
These
crazy, chilling, repressed folks you mention know, like you, that they
are

correct. Why, they can just *feel it*.

It is possible to read this, Rachel, and actually think you're talking
most here about how right they feel ABOUT THEMSELVES -- not their
opinions, their take on the world -- about how they deep-down,
ESSENTIALLY, think about themselves as human beings -- are they
crazy? wrong? out of touch? So I don't think they do, in this sense,
know themselves to be "correct," or "right," in the sense that "chill"
people like me do. If you feel yourself to be right as a human
being, to deserve to live an uninhibited, happy life, I don't think
you're likely to be one of the crazy, repressed folks I mentioned.
This is mostly why I answered you the way I did.

James was saying that I was skipping the most important part. I know
that (he thought that), and it's probably why in the next post I
jumped right to it: with psychohistory, it's not about the argument
anymore; it's about your state of well being. James's point that with
psychohistory you can't infer backwards (which is dubious, or at least
very, very complicated, to me) is not something I got into, because to
mind instantly I knew that this whole thing isn't so much about
knowing more, but about caring / feeling more. The more advanced
psychoclass is able to, and cares now to, see the abundant cruelty,
insanities, that previous generations, more regressed people, could
not see, despite it being everywhere before them. Members of such a
psychoclass can't be convinced that to convince what they need is
more information, or different sources, not just because they just
know they've already got plenty before them of a kind that "proves the
point" (If Jimmie Carter listens well, respecting you, respecting your
point, but never deferingly / self-diminishingly; if Paul Krugman
talks with charm and style but also with deep concern and serious
intent; if Jim Henson reaches out in ways that make it no surprise
that beyond a generation have through their encounter with him felt
more worthy of being loved; and you see / sense all this, you just
want to laugh when someone feels this isn't what you should be
pointing at to prove how a person is constituted [i.e., their
psychoclass]), but because they know the problem before them isn't
really evidence -- it's the inability, disinclination, of the person
you are talking to see the obvious. I know I'm not going to convince
by digging at childhoods here (which to me was foremost here who Obama
is now as a person, not how you just know he must have "gotten on"
with his mother), so I don't get into it. What I do is try to prompt
out people to act in ways which show them aspects of themselves which
I suspect may be used to suggest to them that the problem isn't really
my inability to argue properly -- however well I am in fact arguing --
or to look at what I should have drawn upon, but in factors working
against their ability to cooperate in well attending to what I have to
say. How does Lloyd convince (and the point can be made that even
amongst psychohistorians, he HASN'T, mostly -- how often do you
encounter psychohistorians talk about how their mothers have
determined the course of their lives: point number one of DeMausian
psychohistory?)? By argument? By historical evidence? Or is it by
perhaps by playing to a part of ourselves that is still yet not
defeated in its struggle to not betray itself, to not defer to how it
senses it is being instructed to see and exist in the world before it,
to see what the better off of us at some level ALREADY KNOW TO BE
TRUE, and just need support, demonstrated proof that you can fight
back without being destroyed, to help us acknowledge it? If this here
is philosophy 101, then even if no job there is I think still
something valuable to be had via an undergrad education. (A PhD could
only make you godly.)

Maybe if I felt that the person I was talking to could be swayed with
a different kind of proof, with references to childhood behavior, I
might have ventured there, despite me thinking it not necessary. If I
doubt it, I go a more appropriate route -- if I sense the point can
somehow still be made (otherwise I wish them well, and go bye-bye).
With James, always ... despite his Libertarian leanings and Republican
daughters.

Patrick

[rachel stoltenberg]

"...I don't think you're likely to be one of the crazy, repressed folks I mentioned."

 

 

Doesn't change things if I am.  The comments from me have just been impersonal, basic log-in-your-eye stuff.  Yes, most / many / maybe all people rely on a gut feeling, or what have you, based upon communication cues and a "feeling" when projecting on, er, judging a person- you kind of have to - and you also have to shed this strong tendency when effectively talking about the subject matter here and move forward. 

 

This has careened off topic, which was U.K. cuts back gov't expenses, so I think this is the last I'll say about it. 

Patrick

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group.
To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohist...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/realpsychohistory?hl=en.

[Florian Galler]

" These crazy, chilling, repressed folks you mention know, like you,
that they are

correct. Why, they can just *feel it*.
I understand this formulation in a way, that Tea Partiers are correct
because they feel that they are correct.
If I have understood this right, I have to make some objections to
it. Feeling right can hardly be a criterion for the appropriatness of
a certain behavior if you only think of stubborn people. Andf what
about the Taliban and other islamic fundamentalist also feel very
convinced that they are correct when they condemn women to get stoned
for some weird patriarchal reason. Many people in the Mideaval Agers
felt it was correct when witches were burnt. The Nazis and many
Germans felt it was correct to "cleanse" the world from Jews,
Disabled, Homosexuals and Comunists.
Irrational social movements in history oftently were backed by an
unquestioned approval by large parts of the population. And only
afterwards, after having been able to quit such a mental disturbance,
they were able to recognize that their behavior had been crazy. In
German this process is called "Vergangenheitsberwaeltigung" (coming to
terms with the past). The U.S. did that thel last time after the
Vietnam War.
I wonder how you reformulate the criterions for confidence that the
Tea Party is right.
Florian

On Oct 25, 3:51 am, rachel stoltenberg <rachelstoltenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> correct.  Why, they can just *feel it*.
>
> Rachel

[James Sturges]

Very good point, Rachel. There are some on this list who persist in thinking that Group Fantasy motivation is only the province of people they disagree with -- not seeming to understand the core PH principle that fantasy underlies all human thought/behavior and Group Fantasy underlies all group behavior. -------Jim --- On Mon, 10/25/10, Florian Galler <floria...@bluewin.ch> wrote:

From: Florian Galler <floria...@bluewin.ch> Subject: Re: U.K. Cuts Back Gov't Expenses To: "realpsychohistory" <realpsyc...@googlegroups.com>

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group. To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohistory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

By "you" here I didn't mean you yourself, Rachel.

By all means, Rachel, lead the way. If impersonal, tight-to-the-chest
reasoned discussion is not an enemy of naked, vulnerable full
disclosure -- what I clearly think psychohistory needs more of, and
why it must wait for the next hippie-revolution to once again grow
wings -- if it can take us further, I'm for it. I knew James would
call my argument circular; I knew it (my argument) was absolutely
vulnerable to being accused of being circular when I felt it's
intrinsic truth and insisted on saying it bare and plain (rather than
with some kind of accompaniment to lure truth to some place I knew it
didn't belong, would sully it). This, I think, should interest /
intrigue you (and James); should count against what identifying an
argument as "circular" is supposed to do to facilitate understanding.
Rather than extend yourself, you use the strict and available and do
an immediate superego close-down on an interesting possibility. We
won't come up with anything unless we're prepared to appear
embarrassing, reckless. Read how historians greeted Lloyd's first
works. To them, he never did anything a serious academic must do to
demonstrate himself worth attendance: he was more curl up under
covers into a fetal position to access a medieval's childhood origins,
but he might also have put forward the circular argument or two. His
subsequent works are better warded against attack, but perhaps --
despite even the massive brilliance of Emotional Life of nations --
not to the better legacy of psychohistory.

Patrick

[rachel stoltenberg]

Florian, I was too roundabout with making the point I was going for, which has little to do with Tea Partiers.  I wasn't trying to stick up for that movement or play devil's advocate for them.  It's just that I notice something interesting.   

 

There is something interesting going on with a person's private judgments, how people at large view and judge that person based on the "quality" of that judgment, and social scapegoating.  When someone (Patrick's comment is the latest thing to remind me) alludes to or outright proclaims that they can "just tell / feel"  when someone is a decent person, I think I live there,buddy. 

 

As a woman (similar for a gay person or ethnic minority I'd imagine), it's exhausting to be expected to rely on this intuition / gut feeling, to be expected to anticipate the future and strangers' actions - a thing that can't possibly be done correctly every time because I can only reasonably be in charge of me.  You see, this gut feeling thing doesn't work all of the time and because of built - in blind spots, it's hard to get feedback and gain accuracy.  The quick algorithm that our brains perform is just a collection of past information.  Prejudice. 

 

Suppose you are at a D.C. office building.  Suppose you meet someone for the first time, a co worker who doesn't talk much if it isn't on or about the job at hand.  You decide they're aloof, not chatty or all that personable. They don't smile enough during introductions.  Maybe they don't seem "warm".  This person just isn't "nice" (forgot to mention, this person is a woman)!  Well, you think in a congratulatory tone, at least I care about people and things that really matter!  Funny thing is, this person is fearless, compassionate, award winning journalist Christiane Amanpour, and you are on the set of "This Week". 

 

If someone give you a chilly feeling, it might not mean that they are less evolved than you.  Maybe it's becasue they're familiar with being judged quickly and by appearances.  Maybe you're an asshole.

 

Also, though I am not a rape victim myself, many, many people are.  Whereas before, it was common to pick apart a rape victim's clothing choices, sexual history and sanity, enough people now agree that this identifies you as a horrific asshole.  So new plan!  Nowadays, a rape victim's judgement is picked apart, and I don't mean by defense attourneys.  How could she not get a bad vibe from that guy?  Why did she drink so much?  This is scapegoating the victim, who, it's always implied in dramatic depictions and , should probably have had better judgement so as to not get herself raped.  A big fraction of all rapes in America go unreported because of people closing in on you and the subtle-but-there scapegoating that happens.  Many people would rather hang on to their last illusions about humanity. 

 

Also, there was a study I think in the 1970s in America involving pre screened, sane college students that were admitted into a psych ward (at different times).  Treatment staff were told that these people had or were suspected of having schizophrenia.  Well, guess what happened. 

 

This is all to say that folks who are seen to have some glitch in their judgment abilities - even small, even once - are scapegoated by having their sanity doubted, being openly mocked, bullied, laughed at or otherwise targeted.  If they weren't, then we as a society would have to start discussing unpleasant things like where rapists and abusers come from, and why are so many of us entertained by being so nasty to each other.  But that's impolite to talk about, so better to make sure that other people don't do terrible things to you.  Even though it's almost impossible. 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group.
To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohist...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/realpsychohistory?hl=en.

[James Sturges]

OK, Patrick. If you intended to disarm me with this, you have succeeded.  Anyone that would actually say they are waiting for a revival of the 60's-early 70's hippie-revolution movement is worthy in my book of a second, a third, a fourth etc. look. I am truly impressed by this thought. It is so off-the-wall ... and yet deep down I admit that I wish for it myself. Just in case Santa Claus is reading this ... if a new hippie-revolution movement is too much to ask for, then how about a redo of the 90's? I'm sure I could time the bubble right this time. ---------Jim

--- On Mon, 10/25/10, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: U.K. Cuts Back Gov't Expenses To: "realpsychohistory" <realpsyc...@googlegroups.com>

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group. To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohistory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.