The strongest argument against Turbo America Haywood offered was that the competent people in the deep state can't actually be identified externally, and therefore occupy the same ontological category as reptoids slithering around the City of London. In practice, has anyone ever actually met any of these highly competent operators? By contrast, when one does encounter representatives of the managerial class, the standout characteristic tends to be how unimaginative and intellectually unimpressive they are. The evidence suggests that extreme intraelite competition has emphasized strategies that select for toadyism over competence. That has a stabilizing effect in the short term but is corrosive to regime stability in the long term.
Another excellent point is that practically every technology we've been promised for decades now has turned out to be vaporware. Probably this is partly a consequence of those technologies being more difficult to develop than initially expected, but there's a good argument to be made that an overbearing regulatory state, a financialized economy that parasitizes productive activity on behalf of symbol manipulation, a decaying higher education system that's become essentially a CRT/DIE cult headquarters, and a sclerotic scientific funding system that channels resources towards long-established projects or ideological endeavors as a form of rent-seeking and patronage, have all played roles in this technological failure to thrive.
The strongest argument against Turbo America Haywood offered was that the competent people in the deep state can't actually be identified externally, and therefore occupy the same ontological category as reptoids slithering around the City of London. In practice, has anyone ever actually met any of these highly competent operators? By contrast, when one does encounter representatives of the managerial class, the standout characteristic tends to be how unimaginative and intellectually unimpressive they are. The evidence suggests that extreme intraelite competition has emphasized strategies that select for toadyism over competence. That has a stabilizing effect in the short term but is corrosive to regime stability in the long term.
Another excellent point is that practically every technology we've been promised for decades now has turned out to be vaporware. Probably this is partly a consequence of those technologies being more difficult to develop than initially expected, but there's a good argument to be made that an overbearing regulatory state, a financialized economy that parasitizes productive activity on behalf of symbol manipulation, a decaying higher education system that's become essentially a CRT/DIE cult headquarters, and a sclerotic scientific funding system that channels resources towards long-established projects or ideological endeavors as a form of rent-seeking and patronage, have all played roles in this technological failure to thrive.
Great chat!
HOLY MOLY how old are guys? I would not have guessed that from your voices. Berry fresh.