If you build it they will come they say. If I could just figure out The Entertainment I could get people to come to my blog and have high replies and viewership. Although the true Entertainment is so entertaining that people die of dehdration consuming The Entertainment.
Who is there to reply and view? This site certainly is not growing and never will again.
Why don't I stop this and write a novel? Well, novels are bloody difficult to write. I'm not sure I have it in me. I should probably just plan to be white trash at this point. Shoot guns, jerk off to porn, be ignorant. That's way less difficult than writing a novel. I already practice the guitar. I need a studio to paint, blah blah blah. I'm frustrated over here ya know?
I'm just chillin' listening to EBTG (Everything But The Girl). 'Bout ready to go to bed I think. I'm reading The Culture of Narcissism by Lasch. If narcissism is self-absorbtion count me in. Hopefully, I can learn something from this book.
If you are annoyed by my blogs just remember I am a self-absorbed junkie. AA can only do so much. Especially, when I never go. I haven't seen a therapist in months. I am a bored monkey. A dopamine junkie. A corporate elite flunkey. Still so fresh and so funky. Maybe I can dance it away. Or, I'll just try and listen to Outkast - ATLiens in my car.
Turn this shit around baby. I just ate 2 pieces of Fried Chicken and washed it down with some Gatorade Lemon Lime. There is some Stella Artois in the fridge I thought about washing the chicken down with that but it's not time for that yet. If I had some weed I might smoke it. Some E I might roll it... You get the point. It's Saturday night I'm trying to party.
I was late to the meeting tonight. No parking spaces so I just turned around and came home.
But, it all comes back to not having a job and all the Fear that surrounds that issue. No idea where I am going to work.
That would be a rough bet. Consume far-right news most of the day to see if it changes me. Especially, as a free roll for everyone. As a performance art piece.
On January 24 2024 02:19 RiKD wrote:
I will read Breitbart, listen to far-righ podcasts in the car, watch Fox News at home... ugh that sounds dreadful.
conservatives are also retarded, radicalize into libertarianism instead
I tried to find a political post from early LP... (Dec 6 2005)
On December 06 2005 12:07 RiKD wrote:
I just stayed up all night writing a paper on this garbage and it shows up here. BM man BM. Either way a better model is Let-Them-Eat-Cakers on the top, Social Safety Netters on the bottom, Integrationalists on the right, and Separatists on the left. About the same thing but explains todays issues better. Newt Gingrich is example of upper right, Bill Clinton is lower right, Dick Gephart is lower left, Ross Perot is upper left. In terms of where I stand... I suck Slick Willy's dick better than Monica.
As far as I can tell my fancy university gave me the take above.
Poker made me libertarian.
I studied libertarianism after poker which made me more so.
Crushed by capitalism, ruined by alcohol and mental illness is what "radicalized" me left. I needed social safety nets which brought me more left. It's not like I am a fan of the State so much as I needed social safety nets to survive.
Believe it or not this was a post from me April 8 2011:
^cut spending yes, raise taxes yes, during the 40s-60s we had undeniably large economic growth with very large taxes by any measure and we quickly paid off our debts from the war
income taxes in the past 70 yrs of american history
fwiw in order left to right that's, FDR 32-45, truman 45-53, eisenhower, 53-61, jfk, 61-63, johnson 63-69, nixon 69-74, carter and reagan didn't alter the tax, then reagan lowered it massively.
Debt decreased til reagan, when reagan lowered taxes the debt increased massively, then clinton increased taxes again and the debt went back down, bush raised taxes and shot spending off the chart so the debt rose steeply, if obama raised taxes back up again and stop needless spending like iraq our debt would decrease again. No president has ever lowered spending from one fiscal year to the next either.
You really like playing out doomsday scenarios that just won't occur. The debt problem isn't that big a deal it's just being blown out of proportion, our inflation rate is hovering in the 3-5 range which is safe and actually we had deflation like .85% deflation last year.
how was there 94% taxes?
The richest people were not whiny bitches about paying taxes.
Taxes were a shit ton higher in general but there also was a large tax bracket difference, the lowest in the 1950s was 20% tax rate, the highest was 91% (truman actually lowered it from 94 to 91 in 1946). Contrast to today where the lowest is 10% and the highest is 35%. Also there were a ton more brackets which is what is greatly needed today. In 2011 there are only 6 tax brackets, in 1954 there were 24 tax brackets. This allowed taxes to be more evenly spread out in wealth. It makes zero sense that Bill Gates makes like 2 billion in a year and pays the same amount of income tax that a person making $400k/yr pays. Nevermind all the brackets that need to be put inbetween 0 dollars and the 400k, there should be a ton more between 400k and a billion.
This gave the government tons of money to spend to build things like the interstate highway system, while also paying off our massive debts.
Similar high inflation rates were between 46 and 51. Both times the American economy rebounded and did just fine.
You used Bill Gates so I'm gonna use Bill Gates also. if you tax Bill's 2 billion at 94% he's still bringing in $120mil/year. Utility wise that's more than enough to basically do whatever you want in this world. From that point of view it makes a lot of sense. Hire a bunch of economists and philosophers to come up w/ a very elaborate taxing plan. fuck 6 or 24 brackets. i'm talking 100+.
That brings up some questions though. 94% is pretty serious business. regardless of what Bill pulls in a year that is A LOT of forced labor. On one hand the US govt. provided security and the opportunity for him to get to this point on the other hand the US govt. has made a lot of laws and tax law that coerces everyone to stay here and give them money.
How does forcing payment of a shit ton of money from the brilliant and incredibly hard working motivate them to be more brilliant and work harder?
How does giving that shit ton of money to the stupid and lazy motivate them to not be stupid and lazy?
Why/how will the US govt use that money better than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jan 26 2024 16:56. Posts 5297
Theres an economist Jagdish Baghwati the argued in 2007 in his defense of globalization book that extreme jnequality is better than normal inequality because people like bill gates give back more. I remember reading that 10 years ago now and thinking, wow, what a delusional cunt. But now that I think about it more it seems like a straight contradiction because if it were true then there wouldn't be extreme inequality anymore.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jan 26 2024 20:03. Posts 3093
I mean if you assume that people with $100billion will give away $50 billion while people with $1 billion will give away only $100 million then turning 100 $1-billionaires into 1 $100-billionaire could be considered a good thing I guess, and not really contradictory.
That said people having $1 billion is still in extreme inequality terrain.
PuertoRican United States. Jan 26 2024 21:21. Posts 13050
On January 26 2024 19:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean if you assume that people with $100billion will give away $50 billion while people with $1 billion will give away only $100 million then turning 100 $1-billionaires into 1 $100-billionaire could be considered a good thing I guess, and not really contradictory.
That said people having $1 billion is still in extreme inequality terrain.
Would the world be a better place if it copied the way Norway does things?
Equality for all, etc.
Rekrul is a newb
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jan 26 2024 21:42. Posts 5297
On January 26 2024 19:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean if you assume that people with $100billion will give away $50 billion while people with $1 billion will give away only $100 million then turning 100 $1-billionaires into 1 $100-billionaire could be considered a good thing I guess, and not really contradictory.
That said people having $1 billion is still in extreme inequality terrain.
Yeah I considered all that. But you also have to consider rhe fact that he did not discuss any auxiliary assumptions at all. Dont think they discussed absolute vs percentages, or 100 billiionare to billionaure ratio.
Its also a very naive assumption to make there but yeah technically they can prevent a contradiction by assuming multi billionaires are all more generous than millionares or billionaires in percentage terms not just absolute terms. Surely not backed up by empirical evidence but that certainly wont stop them!
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 26/01/2024 22:21
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jan 26 2024 21:44. Posts 5297
On January 26 2024 19:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean if you assume that people with $100billion will give away $50 billion while people with $1 billion will give away only $100 million then turning 100 $1-billionaires into 1 $100-billionaire could be considered a good thing I guess, and not really contradictory.
That said people having $1 billion is still in extreme inequality terrain.
Would the world be a better place if it copied the way Norway does things?
Equality for all, etc.
Most economists starting paying attention to inequality after 2008 a great deal more. It's now a common belief that inequality slows economic growth. Europe still exploits the rest of the world's resources rather than the other way around.
If the whole world copied Norway then we would likely speed up environmental collapse. Even though its one of the better performing rich countries in that area, it still falls short. If countries like India wanted to copy Norways model they would have to do it in a very minimalistic way. Things like gender equality are regarded as the best thing for the environment because of population control. That's one easy area to copy.
There's a contradiction that left wing degrowthers ignore when they point out rich people produce way more emissions and therefore we should equalize society. And that is that it would boost economic growth, which is largely tied to environmental collapse. Now ofc they might also think growth and emissions can be decoupled (I my view they can), but that isn't bought into the argument.
There are all sorts of auxiliary assumptions that are underlying these arguments and need to be considered
==?===========
One amusing anecdote I have is that the heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune made a whole documentary on inequality. His family wouldn't want to talk to him about it in it. He got an interview with Milton Friedman, and suggested a slightly progressive wealth tax. The response from Friedman was a tantrum about the kid not knowing what he was talking about and advocating socialism. Guess who history proved right? The guy with a Nobel prize and 60 years research experience or the twenty year old rich kid going around questioning things. Most economists agree with the kid now.
?=?=======
To get a society of billionaires you have to waste a lot of money on things like lobbying, security, public relations, and environmental policies that make an extra dollar for them but cost many dollars for the public. It's crazy to think a thousand dollars spent on luxury goods or put into the stock market goes further than giving to people who need food.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
I just got done with a long painting sesh and ahhhh it feels incredible. Painting is paradise.
Now, I have to come back down to earth.
I think I will always be a social safety nets guy from here on out. The Let them eat cakers... that is pretty vicious. What do you do with all these people who don't have bread or cake?
United States. Jan 22 2024 05:25. Posts 8552
