Best products from r/thedavidpakmanshow

>The First Bank of the United States did not just act as a Bank for the government, it gave subsidized loans to Americans and nationalized state-run banks.

Firstly, the sentence "it...nationalized state-run banks" does not make any sense. If a bank is state-run then it is already nationalised. You're basically saying the First Bank nationalised nationalised banks. Secondly, and more importantly, the fact that the First Bank did not nationalise banks nor did Hamilton want to nationalise banks. I challenge you to present a shred of evidence for either.

>Businessmen supported Hamilton and his plans, over slave owners in the south who favored Jefferson.

So what? What's the conclusion to be drawn from this premise? Businessmen supported Hamilton and his plans over slave-owners in the South who supported Jefferson, therefore Hamilton must have been left-wing? That's a non sequitur of an argument. If it's not a non-sequitur, then we can conclude that whichever candidate, even today, has the support of business is the left-wing candidate. By that logic - your logic, most right-wing candidates today are actually left-wing. The support Hamilton and Jefferson had from businessmen and slave-groups respectively had nothing to do with where they were on the political spectrum. Those groups supported Hamilton or Jefferson because it was in their interest to do so. Hamilton's ideology was one which begat policies which benefited businessmen. Jefferson ideology was one which begat policies which benefited slave-owners. Think of it like this: Andrew Yang. Richard Spencer and many alt-righters have been expressing support for Andrew Yang. By your logic, Andrew Yang is therefore a right-winger.

>Support for states rights, slavery and against subsidies, government investments into the economy is to the right of the economic plans of Alexander Hamilton.

Those things are not even related. It makes no sense to say support for slavery is to the right of Hamilton's economic plans, anymore than it makes sense to say support for a Mexican-US border wall is to the right of Bernie Sanders' economic plans. The two things are not comparable. It's apples to oranges. A person can support slavery whilst supporting Hamilton's economic plans. A person can oppose slavery whilst opposing Hamilton's economic plans. Indeed, the man who killed Hamilton, Aaron Burr, was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, which Jefferson was leader of. The Democratic-Republican Party opposed the centralising policies of Hamilton's Federalist Party. However, guess what? Burr was also a staunch abolitionist who sought, unsuccessfully, to abolish slavery immediately following the American Revolutionary War. So, if you're correct and "[s]upport for states rights, slavery and against subsidies, government investments into the economy is to the right of the economic plans of Alexander Hamilton", how do you - i.e. you specifically - describe Aaron Burr who actively, not passively, opposed slavery but supported a party which opposed the centralising policies of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party? Is he a conservative? Is he a right-winger?

It's becoming clear to me that your understanding of political ideology is so basic, so simplistic, that you actually think, unironically, that support for big government makes you left-wing and support for small government makes you right-wing. Well, I have news for you. There are leftists out there who support small government. Anarcho-communists and left-libertarians (like Chomsky and Greenwald), for example.

>The Democratic Party was the Democratic-Republican Party. In fact, the Democratic-Republican Party was almost never referred to that during that time, it was referred to as the Democratic Party.

That's not a fact at all. In fact, it's not even true. During the time that the Democratic-Republican Party existed - i.e. prior to its splintering in 1824, it was usually referred to as the Republican Party. Source.

>The ideological coalition of Jefferson’s Democratic/Democratic-Republican Party was the same as under Andrew Jackson and under reconstruction.

Again, not true. The Democratic-Republican Party splintered in 1824 (two years before Jefferson's death) and dissolved in 1825. The faction loyal to Andrew Jackson coalesced into the Jacksonian movement (which would soon acquire the name Democratic Party). The faction led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay formed the National Republican Party. And some other groups went on to form the Anti-Masonic Party. The National Republicans, Anti-Masons, and other opponents of Andrew Jackson later formed themselves into the Whig Party. Source. It is therefore simply incorrect to assert that the ideological coalition of Jefferson’s Democratic/Democratic-Republican Party was the same as under Andrew Jackson and under reconstruction, when in fact that ideological coalition splintered into different parties due to the ideological schisms within the coalition. Therefore, whilst the Democratic Party that existed during construction may have been substantially identical in ideology to the one borne out of the Jacksonian movement during the 1820s, it can in no way be said to be identical to the ideological coalition that was Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. (This point is so simple to understand, and yet, I am almost certain you still won't understand it).

You seriously need to do more research and adopt a more nuanced view of these historical facts and political ideology, Kyle. I would recommend this book, "Political Ideology Today" by Ian Adams.

update:

Tokyo Vice wasn't as yakuza-centered as I hoped it would be, but was still worth reading. Apparently it's being made into a movie. Most books by journalists lose something in the translation to celluloid (The Men Who Stare at Goats comes to mind), but hopefully there's enough of a narrative here so that it will work out OK.

Mother. Wife. Sister. Human. Warrior. Falcon. Yardstick. Turban. Cabbage. by Rob Delaney - Most comedians' debut books are just autobiographies with a prevailing theme. This one's an ex-alcoholic memoir. Some pretty funny stories, but if you're not a fan of his comedy I wouldn't expect this to convert you. If you like his comedy, you'll like this book.

I Can Barely Take Care of Myself: Tales From a Happy Life Without Kids, by Jen Kirkman - similar to the above in that it's a comedian's first book with the prevailing theme that's explained in the title. But unlike Delaney's book, this confronts outdated taboos in a refreshing way.

Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk, by Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain - I'm not quite halfway through this and already wish it were ten times longer. Lots of great stories told from multiple points of view so as to expose biases, which makes the stories that much richer. I got this as an ebook but kinda wish I had a hard copy since it's the kind of book I imagine you can pick up at pretty much any point and become engrossed quickly. That is, if you're a fan of music.

Not gonna respond point by point (@ work), and I don't have the book in my hands, but the short response to this is that Smith and others were pre-capitalist figures. They simply weren't around to witness the birth of the mega corporation, the financialization of the economy, the rise of the 'shareholder revolution', etc. The kind of wealth and power that now exists was not comparable in 18th century England. It doesn't take much reading of their work to realize they would have detested these aspects of the modern economy. Do you really think classical figures like Smith, Locke, et al would be supportive of massive deregulation of derivatives and the shuffling around of collateralized debt obligations? Take a deep look at Paul Ryan's budgets and the GOP agenda and you'll see that these are the types of policies - the complete elimination of Dodd-Frank, for one - that arise from the modern conservative worldview, which has been extensively polluted by big money and corporate power over the past 40 years. None of this is to even mention the views that came out of the Enlightenment about science and reason. Smith would shudder at the anti-intellectual, anti-science worldview that now dominates the GOP, from Trump and Ryan on down.

I disagree with Chomsky about a lot, but he's actually very good on this topic, and is the one who inspired me to read Wealth of Nations and Moral Sentiments in the first place. You can find some of his thoughts here. Apologies if referencing this to you is "not how arguments work".

I don't understand your pedantry about pointing to Dark Money as a good resource. It takes 2 seconds to read a summary. She goes into scrupulous detail about how the ideas associated with classical liberalism like small government, liberty, etc have been twisted and distorted by big money interests to serve their own agenda. In short, clamoring about the hatred of "big" government is very convenient for people like the Koch brothers who don't want any watchful eyes on them as they pollute the environment and destroy the world.

Maybe we're speaking at cross-purposes to some degree, but my point is that Ryan can only be considered a classical liberal based on a very narrow and cartoonish version of that school of thought. To reduce it to "minimal government" and the "liberty of the individual" is to ignore the larger body of work that really constitutes classical liberalism. The term is now so devoid of all meaning (thanks to people like Rubin and others) that it's historic, pre-capitalist roots now mean nothing. If you actually know the history, it's sort of laughable to describe someone like Ryan like that in my view.

Some more great reads (again, sorry?) are American Amnesia, which dives into anti government ideology in more detail as well, and Saving Capitalism by Robert Reich, who writes about how the idea of a free market in today's economy is a myth.

edited for clarity

To anti-Trumpgeniuses I would like to point something out:

Start with the blog http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/rules-for-rulers

The look up the book: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics-ebook/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1477309620&sr=1-1&keywords=the+dictator%27s+handbook&linkCode=sl1&tag=greyblog-20&linkId=f8e4272303a83475186b4ed632168f9c

Note that it was published in 2011.

Now let's read the description:

> For eighteen years, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith have been part of a team revolutionizing the study of politics by turning conventional wisdom on its head. They start from a single assertion: Leaders do whatever keeps them in power. They don't care about the “national interest”—or even their subjects—unless they have to.
> This clever and accessible book shows that the difference between tyrants and democrats is just a convenient fiction. Governments do not differ in kind but only in the number of essential supporters, or backs that need scratching. The size of this group determines almost everything about politics: what leaders can get away with, and the quality of life or misery under them. The picture the authors paint is not pretty. But it just may be the truth, which is a good starting point for anyone seeking to improve human governance.

If you make the conclusion: let's keep government as small as humanly possible - yay! Good for you.

If you conclusion is: red team sucks, blue team rocks, then OMFG!

I can't even! How? How do you not see or smell the fucking rotting sperm whale in the room?

You know, red team, at least in name is the government opposition party. Blue team is all for more government. It is not even symmetric ...

Kyle did a nice job there. The framing pressures at Fox News are at such full force that you have to be very active in counteracting them. Otherwise you will fall into any of a long list of games they play with their average viewer to gain support for their conclusions. I would suggest a book by George Lakoff called Don't Think of an Elephant, as it's about that very subject

>Now, please correct the word, "sentence" or are you a fathead?

Also, yet another display of poor grasp, or lack thereof, of the comma. Epic fail, sir! lol

Since you were so kind as to recommend that I read more, might I return the favour and recommend you this rather helpful guide? It's "Penguin Writers' Guides: How to Punctuate". Lol

This does a pretty good job of it: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716

Strict father vs nurturing parents mentality.

Europe should also consist of ethnostates. Here is a book on this subject: https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Identity-Markus-Willinger/dp/1907166416

Why should Europeans also have a state or states in North America? Because Europeans came here as pioneers and created a society and state of their own on this continent. Compare the Turks in Turkey. They are originally a Central Asian people, from (more or less) Turkmenistan. They migrated west and conquered Turkey for themselves. This is pretty much how any people that possesses any land has acquired it. History can be brutal.

Europeans settled in America and created a nation for "Ourselves and Our Posterity." As they made quite clear in the First Congress (1790 Naturalization Act - google it), that means White people. The USA was created by, of, and for White people.

Further reading on the Founders: http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race

Further considerations on America and race: https://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312285485

The dictator's handbook... is a great explanation.

Happy to see more from Rutger Bregman! You should check out his book, https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World/dp/0316471895/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497400094&sr=8-1&keywords=Utopia+For+realists.

Read Dark Money, strongly recommend reading that along with Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century.

This is the textbook if anyone was interested https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199588058/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_asp_joyED.063DVJW

Is this the one? https://www.amazon.com/Marxs-Capital-Illustrated-Introduction/dp/1608462668

It looks like a cartoon interpretation of Das Kapital? No?

Amazon. And I prefer classic silver.

www.amazon.com/Electro-Deflecto-Unisex-Foil-Size/dp/B01I497JAM

Rules for Rulers explains everything. It explains Rex Tillerson (he's Putin's key to extracting oil while empowering local rivals the least). It explains why Giuliani and Gingrich got dropped (the keys for getting into power are different from the keys to stay in power). And it explains our role in resisting the worst parts of Trump's agenda (we are they keys to power for Trump's keys to power - the legislature - and, as such, we can control them). I keep watching this video, and it keeps illustrating something new about the situation we're in. Makes me want to read the book it's based on.