>

Democracies will never take the problem seriously as long as they are run by neoliberals
Extremism rises when the system in place is failing citizens and is corrupted. Bad living conditions are in contrast with riches of few, people stop seeing it for its glamour and lean towards seeing it as a class injustice. Tensions rise, desperation turns into blame, reason to violence. Rise of extremism is natural reaction to something. >

A breakdown of 70+ years of continuous global progress, due to a string of crises that affect every continent simultaneously, and no clear way out is a very dangerous time for our species. There have been dark periods in the past, but there generally was widespread belief that they would be resolved (either via religious dogma or via an escape from the mundane life cycle via nirvana/enlightenment). The 2020s are fertile ground for con men and doomsday cults of all varieties, even if the prior problems had begun to emerge in individual countries like the USA and Brazil in the 2010s. >


no clear way out is a very dangerous time for our species

Eh, i don't think humans are going away anytime soon, we're a tenacious lot, sure the vast majority of us will die off in the coming climate crisis and we'll be propelled back into a pre-industrial society, but unless something extreme happens like an asteroid strike or a gamma-ray burst cooks us alive i don't see us going anywhere.
In the words of George Carlin "The planet is fine, the people are fucked." >

Not dangerous in terms of extinction, but dangerous in terms of an explosion of terrifying regimes and cults interspersed with, and at times using, highly advanced robots and AIs. >

There's not going to be any major industry left to build or maintain said robots or AI, it could only exist in a highly developed, highly technological society. They will only contribute to a more rapid collapse, they're not going to survive the outcome, unless we somehow manage to invent a factory that is entirely self-sustaining, then maybe we'll get something like the Matrix or Skynet. >


There's not going to be any major industry left to build or maintain said robots or AI, it could only exist in a highly developed, highly technological society.

That assumes a complete, global collapse which I see as unlikely. New Zealand alone probably can ride out the storms, especially with all the foreign oligarch capital there, although there might be a long stretch of Depression-like conditions. >


That assumes a complete, global collapse which I see as unlikely.

And i see it as inevitable, COVID already put a massive strain on the global supply network, something much bigger like climate change flooding cities and mass killing crops will definitely break it.
Unless New Zealand somehow manages to develop complete economic, industrial and environmental autarky before things get ugly i don't think so.
The issue with our current global economy is that every country is in someway dependent on others, once climate change becomes real (or more real than it already is) things will start to go very quickly, countries like New Zealand might fare better but i can't imagine the people living there will be keen on just trucking along as usual whilst the rest of the world collapses around them.
Anything not produced on New Zealand they will have to make themselves, and depending on what that is they might not fare so well in that regard. >

I've always heard that a complete and irreversible collapse of industrial civilization would stem from the loss of knowledge and would require something even more catastrophic than that (i.e. a thermonuclear war affecting every inhabited continent or a complete global blackout due to a solar flare or gamma ray burst). NZ might not fare as well as it has recently (higher prices relative to wages, scarcities of exotic goods), but they aren't going to forget how to operate modern technologies and the decay will likely be long enough for an alliance of local elected officials and international billionaires to co-opt countries like NZ, Uruguay, Iceland, Chile, and maybe even Canada without having to resort to bunkers. Although admittedly you are starting to run into problems where attempts to decarbonize end up having costs elsewhere, from massive lithium mines to the truth that walkable cities at more than 3-4 stories' density require lots of steel and concrete. >

Well the loss of knowledge would happen over a single generation, if your parents don't work in a factory or as plumbers or whatever because, well there aren't any factories to work in or any pipes to fix because the entire infrastructure is completely broken, and your whole family is too busy trying to sustain a bare-level subsistence farming then the knowledge will be lost very quickly.
If we're lucky some good Samaritan will empty out libraries of any and every book they can find and then wrap them in wax paper and keep them dry and maintained in a bomb shelter somewhere for the future, but for the first few generations after the collapse people will be far too busy just trying to stay alive to really learn or care about how a car works, there isn't any fuel left to run the thing so it's completely worthless. >

Which again implies a collapse so bad that even New Zealand loses electricity and infrastructure, and while they won't be "just trucking along" you have to explain how that happens. >

It started by allowing corporations to buy politicians. >

Politicians should only be able to buy a extremely broad index funds.
Or invest their money in the countries equivalent of a future fund. >

They’re called government bonds, and there are a few varieties. But if we’re going to allow investing by politicians, that should be the only place they’re allowed to invest
Something something peanut farm >

Nah, bonds are guaranteed returns right? That gives them no incentive to to grow the economy.
Bonds become more attractive in bear markets in fact.
It is also unfair to put them out of stock investment entirely. >

It’s not unfair to put them out of stock investment. Politics is a choice. Choosing to go into it should come with necessary sacrifices.
And as I said, there are a variety of different bonds, but the general idea is they reflect the health of the US government and country as a whole, not just of Wall Street >

If politicians were limited to middle-class wages, only people who were already rich would agree to do it. >

This is a ridiculous and untrue message often spread, that ignores the basic truth that some people get into civil service to serve others. Some people are fine with middle class wages. Many people actually get into local politics in a nonprofit manner. >

Or... counter point... you look at societies with low paid public servants and see a culture of open corruption. 
Some people are fine with poverty wages too. But it makes a few thousand dollars very tempting because it's 'change-your-life' money. >

Ok, so, crazy thought: no one gets paid poverty wages. That’s called slavery. >

That was my point. Just because some people work jobs w/ "X" wage - doesn't mean it's something worth striving for. He said some folks are fine with middle class wages - and will do civil service work. Well, it's look around to see some folks doing the work for even less. Teachers a classic example.
I want smart educated folks to be able to go in politics without hamstringing their financial security. Trump was just fine donating his salary, but AOC wouldn't be able to do the job without hers. >

Isn’t “speed” part of the appeal of tyranny though? Being able to make whatever decision you want without consideration for the wants or needs of others? >

Yeah, look how fast China can get major projects done. Pretty easy to get a new power plant or rail line built when anyone who bitches about it gets killed for their organs. >

Property law is actually pretty strict in China, there's just no private land ownership >

that audience knows, they've got the receipts >

Yeah Davos a joke. >

Speaking to a room who buys tyrants >

Not necessarily, but billionaires will chose capitalism under fascism over paying a bit more taxes in a domocracy any day.
So now that shit is slowly hitting the fan and there's a risk of people actually standing up against unbridled capitalism, demanding their fair share, billionaires will pour mountains of money into far right politicians who will defend capitalism even if it means the end of democracy. >

That's because democracies aren't taking tyranny seriously.  There are extreme right wing movements in nearly every democracy now, and they're all working together like globalists (coordinated by Steve Bannon and his ilk and sponsored by Russia) to overthrow democracies.  Most of them continue to operate unimpeded despite having committed numerous crimes for which they haven't been held accountable.  It's time to hold them accountable.  The fascists who are trying to overthrow democracy belong in prison for life.  The turning point in this war against fascism will be when democracies decide to take the problem seriously and start going after fascists and arresting them for their crimes.