On May 26 2018 00:42 Baalim wrote:
what US corporations here? wtf are you talking about?
We had a million man march in Mexico city against violence all dressed in white, guess what happened? nothing.
If you want people over profit and class equailty then live a frugal life and donate the rest instead of bitching to the government that they should take it from others by force.
Koch brothers have a presence in Mexico. 6,000 employees across Monterrey, Guadalajara, and Mexico City among these entities: Georgia-Pacific, INVISTA, Koch Chemical Technology Group, Molex (All Koch brother/U.S. corporations). Mexico has no fucking power over any of those entities. The people of Mexico have no power over any of those entities. We were talking about climate change. If Mexico or the people of Mexico or the scientists deemed it wise to sanction some of those entities well now we have NAFTA here. The Koch brothers and the U.S. government can tell Mexico to basically fuck off or bad things will happen and then Mexico will fuck off because it has to. Because they don't have any other options.
Re: Coercion
What's worse getting coerced by the government or coerced by corporations? Getting coerced by both! Here's the thing. If we are going to be coerced by government which is going to happen as long as it exists we might as well make it more fair. People are getting coerced at a much larger rate relative to the corporations and they are getting coerced by the corporations on top of that. So, I am a guy working at a corporation. I'm giving them my time, my effort, my mental health, my sanity. They'll run me until I break if they can. It is an at will contract. So, I can leave whenever I want but they made me sign a non-compete clause. They can fire me whenever they want and the non-compete clause still holds. Getting fired can be devastating. Hiring someone new is more or less a blip on the radar at a large multinational. Say I make $80k and get taxed at 25%. Honestly, there isn't much difference utility wise between $60k and $80k but still that is pretty massive. Now, a corporation pulls in $20 billion and pays 25%. They make $15 billion. Bro, it's basically freeroll life at $10 milly. $100 milly is richer than god. $15 billy???? I mean come on. Of course, the natural inclination for most self-centered selfish perhaps even a little bit psychopathic fucks is to re-invest in the business so they can make even more BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. I remember our CEO had the nerve to sell off a business and give us a raise less than inflation while he took a $1 million salary and $10 million bonus straight to the mo fucking bank. He was swindling the board and the executives and everyone around him. I remember I would get these company wide emails from him. Just a fucking manicured mannequin with a devilish smile. I was just like you fucker. I know what you are doing and I can't do anything the fuck about it. That's what I feel about all these fucks. The business owners the politicians. All manicured fucking mannequins with a devilish smile. Fleecing and exploiting wherever they fucking can. So, I am fighting off manipulation on all fronts. So, I just hunker down in my room reading and posting on LP, reading manifestos for the new millennium... You know, reading all this socialism and anarchy stuff gives me hope but I wonder if it is false hope. If it's all an illusion.
Sometimes I feel like this guy:
You can't win a negotiation with money. The unblinking stare will get you every time.
I felt the same with that CEO picture. That unblinking ghoul staring back at me. Fuck you and your corporation you fuckers can't control me! But they can and they did (to a point) until I drank my way out of that situation. Alcoholism and psychosis just in the knick of time!
I bombed out of rehab. Fuck that place and their God. Actually I was so miserable sober I ended up in a psych ward for being suicidal.
Then I went on vacation. Charleston, SC, Hampton Beach, NH, the lake district in England, and Paris, France. That is how this drunk stayed sober early on and I was doing it on the corporation's dime. They were still paying me. Short term disability suckahs!!! Fuck 'em, they can't control me. I don't think I had any intentions of going back but I did enjoy just about a year's salary. I guess the bottom can exploit the top but it wasn't really like that. I was fucked up. So, signing that contract with the no compete clause and the salary not being where it should have been and all of that ended up working in my favor. I honestly think that was in the back of my mind when my manager's manager was trying to persuade me with short and long term disability. So, you are saying I can self destruct and get paid for a year? Interesting. Very interesting. Maybe it was my plan all along. Boy, did I self destruct. But, I was psychotic for fucking months. I remember thinking I was Jesus and that I at least had some time to live. My whole apartment was covered with 8'' by 11'' piece of paper with artwork, marketing, poems, raps, journals. I remember absolutely hating my dad for throwing it all away. Actually, I put together an entire collection of marketing for the environment. I still have some of it. It was mostly spearheaded by Kate Upton who I had a fascination with at the time.
This is what a capitalist society produces.
I hope a socialist anarchic society is not an illusion. It is one of the things holding myself together. There doesn't seem to be a future otherwise. For me or for anyone. I am sick of the manipulation. I just want to go to the mountains and observe some streams, flowers, and butterflies under a canopy of wildlife. Bath in a forest for a while. I have visions of owning a modern log cabin at the base of a mountain range. I could go on hikes and write poetry and journals. Not be bothered by anyone. I could call friends on the phone. I could spend time with Edgar Morin. I can spend time with Edgar Morin. Au revoir.
Sheesh. I really can't help myself can I. Oh well. Fuck Jordan Peterson! There it relates to the topic...
I couldn't possibly disagree more, fiscal issues and social issues are fundamentally interlinked. The popular libertarian slogan of being "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is a joke, no such thing can exist
So if you are fiscally conservative you must also hold traditional conservative ideals like nationalism, pro-life, anti gay marriage etc?
No... It just means that you can't be "socially liberal", since that would mean, by definition, addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education. "Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual." Fiscal conservativism, which is synonymous with neoliberalism/Reaganomics, does not care for the "good of the community," it prioritizes private interests/economic growth, which actively harms the community. Of course, in American usage, this ideology is perverted and it is unrecognizable from its origins, just like Libertarianism. Only in America can you call yourself a progressive while being a conservative and claim there is no contradiction.
Here's a short rundown of some examples of why it's not "pro-people" to be fiscally conservative:
We’ve all met the 20-year-old College Republican who says, “Yeah I’m a Republican, but I’m pro-choice and pro-gay. You know, I’m socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.”
Here’s the thing: that doesn’t exist. The whole concept of being “socially liberal, but fiscally conservative” is a false pretense created to accommodate younger people with gay friends who are less comfortable outright saying they don’t support gay marriage. One cannot claim to be socially liberal and stand for marginalized people, then turn around and support policies that marginalize them more.
Socially liberal policies are aimed at using the government to take action, like a regulation (the EPAs regulations on coal pollution for example) in order to produce outcomes they believe to be desirable for people. For example, the government passing a law to make it illegal for a business to not serve gay couples. Liberal policies in general tend to be more focused on marginalized people—like people of color, LGBTQ people, disabled people, and poor people.
Fiscally conservative policies, to people that employ the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” mindset, are completely separate. Fiscally conservative people tend to be anti-welfare (many want to cut programs like Medicaid and SNAP), anti-government spending, pro-business, and advocate for a smaller government in general.
Conservative policies encourage less government intervention on businesses and instead advocate using the free market to decide policy. For example, if a company refuses to serve gay couples, fiscal conservatives claim that the company will have to answer to the market, and that will be more organic and natural than having to answer to the government. Conservative policy tends to be more focused on empowering businesses and instituting policies that are more focused on the middle section of Americans, like middle income families and people.
It is in these explanations that we can already start to see a divide. You cannot separate fiscal and economic issues from social issues, and you cannot reconcile the conservative point of view for making policy with the liberal view.
There are no issues that one can claim are purely fiscal or purely social. Even the most “social” of issues have a complete economic side to them. Abortion, for example, cannot be considered entirely social, due to its long and tumultuous history with Medicaid and government spending. Aside from that, the decision of abortion is in itself an economic one. 74% of women say they get abortions because a baby would interfere with their work or school, and 73% of women say that they could not afford a baby.
Poverty, in itself, is a social issue, but is caused by economic problems and remedied by fiscal policies. Fiscal policies have been enacted to improve quality of life and reduce poverty like Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, and disability payments. The cycle of poverty disproportionately affects people of color, queer people, trans people, and disabled people.
But again, issues like health insurance, public education, and union laws cannot be considered in a vacuum. They all exist to protect people that are already marginalized, and messing with these policies is messing with the people that you claim to support.
It would be at this point that fiscal conservatives would say, “Well wait, I’m not opposed to government spending, I’m just opposed to wasteful government spending.” But here’s the thing: wasteful government spending in terms of these programs does not exist. Programs like Medicaid and food stamps exist to try to reduce poverty (or at least try to mitigate its effects), and improve the quality of life for poor people.
Democrats aren’t advocating for a program that would reward every newborn baby with a golden cradle, or funding an initiative that would give every 18-year-old a trip around the world, because that would be wasteful spending. But Medicaid provides a necessary service for poor people, as do food stamps, job training programs in Appalachia, and fishing subsidies in Alaska.
Now, no one is advocating that “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people suddenly become blatantly homophobic, racist, and anti-choice. That would certainly would not be helpful. But if someone consider themselves to be “socially liberal, fiscally conservative,” they should think long and hard about why they believe what they believe. If someone truly wants to be an advocate for the LGBTQ community, disabled people, poor people, and people of color, then they should be consistent in the policies that they advocate for.
No issue exists in a vacuum, and “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people need to recognize that.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 26 2018 00:42 Baalim wrote:
what US corporations here? wtf are you talking about?
If you want people over profit and class equailty then live a frugal life and donate the rest instead of bitching to the government that they should take it from others by force.
Sheesh. I really can't help myself can I. Oh well. Fuck Jordan Peterson! There it relates to the topic...
Honestly bro, you just haven't given capitalism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
No... It just means that you can't be "socially liberal", since that would mean, by definition.
Oh so we are playing diccionary for the 100th time... great.
Now lets get to the bullshit you quoted:
The whole concept of being “socially liberal, but fiscally conservative” is a false pretense created to accommodate younger people with gay friends who are less comfortable outright saying they don’t support gay marriage.
So basically you are claiming that anyone who isnt a leftist is a closet homophobe lol.
Poverty, in itself, is a social issue, but is caused by economic problems and remedied by fiscal policies.
Poverty isnt solved by fiscal policies, poverty is solved by a strong economy driven by the free market, the less policies that hinder it, the less poverty.
This is pretty much the rift of the difference in beliefs, and you fail to recognize this making stupid coments like people who believe in the free market just dont care about people or the environment.
It would be at this point that fiscal conservatives would say, “Well wait, I’m not opposed to government spending, I’m just opposed to wasteful government spending.” But here’s the thing: wasteful government spending in terms of these programs does not exist
This is one of the most stupid things I've see you post.
A childbirth bill in the US costs about 40k, all government spending is wasteful, that is the main reason why it should be the smallest as possible.
You think this isnt wasteful? a 2300% increase in spending that goes basically to bureacracy?
I don't know if the Red Scare irony is worse than the fact that you bolded every sentence in your post. Wtf is the point of that? To show how important and truthful it is? It loses all effect if it's applied to the entire post...
So apparently I'm a pro-bureaucracy guy now. Ok. Anyway, where are the graphs showing that cutting Medicaid and food stamps for the poor actually helps them because of le magix of trickle-down? That's what she was referring to when she said "these programs" which you cut off, not the salaries of hospital admins.
"
This is pretty much the rift of the difference in beliefs, and you fail to recognize this making stupid coments like people who believe in the free market just dont care about people or the environment.
I know that it is, that's why I mentioned it a dozen times. You believe in neoliberal dogma, I do not. I don't think it's empirically based, I think it's crypto-religious. I also never said that it's about evil people who have no care at all for others, I'm saying it's inherent to the system that it won't serve the people, as you claim that it will if the free market is not meddled with. People don't have to intend to cause damage to support short sighted destructive policies, they only need to be ignorant. And well, it certainly has never served to protect the environment and other species... lol. Even you would never dare argue that wildlife has thrived since the advent of neoliberalism.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 26/05/2018 07:49
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 26 2018 07:46. Posts 2227
bold every one of your 500 sentences loco, give him a taste of his own medicine
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Jordan Peterson had an AMA on Reddit recently. He did something that I've never seen any other AMAer do, he included Amazon affiliate links in his posts. He does not disclose that they are affiliate links either. What do you guys think of that?
On May 26 2018 06:20 Loco wrote:
the fact that you bolded every sentence in your post. Wtf is the point of that? To show how important and truthful it is? It loses all effect if it's applied to the entire post...[quote]
Readability, the same reason why I try to keep my posts as short as possible not for you but because of anyone who might be reading. (guess i'll stop since it might get misinterpreted)
[quote]So apparently I'm a pro-bureaucracy guy now.
No, you are simply a guy who doesn't grasp the impact of the vast difference in efficiency between the private and the public sector.
Ok. Anyway, where are the graphs showing that cutting Medicaid and food stamps for the poor actually helps them because of le magix of trickle-down?
What this neoliberal dogma you despise has done to the world:
First of all hospital admins aren't the main problem with subsidized healthcare its the vices in the freemarket it creates, thats the reason why childbirth costs 40k
Second, the salaries are part of the program, government programs are run like that, not just in the US but thats overall how it works since there isn't a strong incentive for efficiency like the freemarket has.
I know that it is, that's why I mentioned it a dozen times. You believe in neoliberal dogma, I do not.
could you stop using such a muddied term when a "free market dogma" would work much better?
I also never said that it's about evil people who have no care at all for others
yes you literally said: "It's the best system for the few who do not care about others or the future"
(had to delete the post cuz I missclicked and edited your post instead of quoting it)
People don't have to intend to cause damage to support short sighted destructive policies, they only need to be ignorant.
totally agree, the raod to hell is paved with good intentions
Even you would never dare argue that wildlife has thrived since the advent of neoliberalism.
the 1st world is growing its forests back and protecting wildlife way better than they did many decades ago, there are still many problems but most of them are done in a particular growing stage that China is going through right now for example.
But as I said before the envronment problems are caused by overpopulation, no matter what system you chose population is the main problem.
What this neoliberal dogma you despise has done to the world:
Do you think this is a slap in the face for me? Everyone who cares to discuss these matters with even just an ounce of seriousness is familiar with the World Bank data and Your World In Data. It's deeply flawed and one-dimensional and you just take it at face value, "free markets are saving the poor, case closed!". No, they aren't. Or at the very least there is no clear evidence that they are. I don't want to run you through why this is flawed, it's more effort than it's worth. You can choose to see a different story if you care to. You should be more skeptical of the data that you come across. Here are some starting points:
Also, you should have said "to poverty" because that graph doesn't show at all what it has done to the world at large. What it has done is why the Doomsday clock has been moved to two minutes to midnight. What it has done is why slavery is still pervasive, what it has done is cause a mind-boggling animal holocaust and why chronic illness and mental illness continues to skyrocket in the West, which you can all see from the same website.
yes you literally said: "It's the best system for the few who do not care about others or the future
That wasn't in one of the posts I just made today, it was in a post from days ago. In that post I was talking about those in the 1%, not middle class people who are on the right-libertarian side. (Your comment said I made the stupid comment that "those who believe in the free market just dont care about people.)
Your gif is just the EU and Switzerland but we were talking about the world. They happen to have a high demand for timber, so they are regrowing the forests. It's not being done because they are concerned with how much forest they had previously removed for carbon sink reasons or whatever. In fact, what's ironic is that forests in Europe have expanded due in part to the burning of fossil fuels which replaced the burning of wood.
Where is your data on the claim that we are protecting wildlife way better now starting from the advent of neoliberalism (early 70s)? We are living through the Holocene extinction currently -- the sixth mass extinction of species. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. There is "widespread consensus in the scientific community that human activity is accelerating the extinction. It is now (since 2000) posited by some that a new geological epoch has begun, characterised by the most abrupt and widespread extinction of species since the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago."
Environmental problems are not caused by overpopulation. It's like if I pushed you off of a bridge and said your death was caused by water. It's myopic Neo-Malthusianism. The problem is growth, more precisely unsustainable growth. It has everything to do with the economic system. The people who reproduce the most in the Global South have a fraction of the average Westerner's carbon footprint and they don't have the power required to massively destroy and poison the environment. We currently massively overproduce food also yet a significant percentage of the population suffers from undernourishment and large numbers of people die of hunger. We don't say the problem is overpopulation in that case either, we say the problem is distribution.
But the most damning part of it all is that, even if we were to take it for granted that overpopulation causes these problems, capitalism itself is a system based on continual growth, which absolutely relies on a continually growing population to maintain itself. Its unsustainability is built-in. In places like Japan and Germany they are seeing negative population growth which leads to economic problems. You have an aging population that needs services and young people aren't there to work to fill those needs. This is why Western countries with low birth rates need to bring in immigrants, contrary to the popular red neck belief that immigrants are there to steal people's jobs.
Speaking of the inability to grasp basic concepts, you should read up on externalities instead of just asserting that the more unregulated markets are, the more desirable and efficient they are.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 26/05/2018 13:00
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. May 26 2018 16:09. Posts 3093
On May 25 2018 21:56 RiKD wrote:
anywhere that was globalized in the USA's vision are climate change deniers too
What in the fuck does that even mean?
The US has a climage-change-denying president, he has no control over the house nor support from even his own party, so far he has pulled out from a meaningless agreement.
Meanwhile the supposedly pro-science left leaning leader of Geramny, Angela Merkel stopped all nuclear energy research and funding after the Fukushima event, because naturally that was going to be a popular opinion despide the fact that the cleanest and more logical option as a transitional energy source is nuclear power. Angela Merkel has been far more damaging for the environment than Trump has by far.
This is why protesting like Loco likes is retarded, going to the streets chanting how you want more fucking windmills or solar panels is idiotic, do you want to help? Then go and study a few years and help build and run thorium reactors, go clean your room before you try to change the world.
You're being kinda silly here.
It's fine that you disagree with Merkel on nuclear power, but it seems like your level of disagreement is completely blinding yourself to the wider efforts.. Germany has reduced their emissions by almost 30% compared to 1990 levels, even without a nuclear focus. American emission levels are virtually unchanged during the same period. (Granted there was very significant reduction between 2008 and 2012).
I mean, to me, there are legit reasons why you want to be skeptical towards nuclear power. Nuclear accidents are one type of accidents that we can't fix. (Although, seeing how the area around Chernobyl looks, part of me also thinks that maybe it's good if more areas are unlivable to humans - apparently humans are worse for animal life than radiation poisoning is). If you look at it from a probabilistic, 50 year time line, then nuclear power is absolutely amazing. But the longer the time period you're dealing with, the more likely it is that you get accidents that take thousands of years to clean up. I also don't really think we have a good way of handling waste from nuclear plants. At the same time, there's the potential for filling all energy needs in a way that most of the time causes very little direct pollution which makes transitioning away from fossil fuels - which is obviously important - much easier. Like, I'm not negative towards nuclear - but I think solar, wind, hydro and tidal-wave are all preferable. Either way I'm not really interested in having a debate about nuclear vs other renewables, whether nuclear is completely flawless isn't actually central to the argument I'm about to make. Both are vastly, vastly superior to fossil fuels in terms of environmental impact on a long term basis. Some renewables like solar at least used to have significant negative initial impact due to production costs, but the more time that passes, the better they end up looking.
Anyway my problem with this reoccurring argument of yours is that you're basically arguing that someone who doesn't care about reducing emissions because he doesn't accept climate change as a real problem of significance is better than someone who actually succeeds in significantly reducing emissions by transitioning over to more renewables because you're offended by the latter person's insistence on not using nuclear power. I don't think that's a sensible approach. Even with her opposition to nuclear, Merkel is still obviously preferable to the republican party on this issue. That's plainly obvious by comparing a) stated goals regarding emissions cutting and b) degree of success at attaining those goals.
On May 26 2018 00:42 Baalim wrote:
what US corporations here? wtf are you talking about?
If you want people over profit and class equailty then live a frugal life and donate the rest instead of bitching to the government that they should take it from others by force.
Sheesh. I really can't help myself can I. Oh well. Fuck Jordan Peterson! There it relates to the topic...
Honestly bro, you just haven't given capitalism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party.
Oh god... "Open a pizza parlor".........
I saw how that can fucking go. ROFL. Come join the party.... Open a pizza parlor.... It worked for me and a couple of my friends..... Don't quit before you start.......... Fucking ridiculous.
Honestly bro, you just haven't given capitalism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party.
Honestly bro, you just haven't given communism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party
Why am I not surprised that you predictably reduce communism to this. It's a Jordan Peterson play. A Fox News play. A Donald Trump play. I guess because it works. Humans don't understand complexity. Just to add a little bit to the picture there were ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved. Now, I realize that in today's world there will still likely be ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved that's why you start small. You start with groups and syndicates. There are no leaders only trusted servants. There is rotation of service. The syndicate should have no outside opinion nor should endorse or oppose anything outside of the syndicate's common interest.
AA gets a lot wrong but it gets the 12 Traditions right:
Disregard the "God" stuff. It is really just about an important common interest.
The fact the syndicate gets any alcoholic sober is a miracle. The fact that a bunch of selfish, self-centered fucks can work together for a common interest and it runs pretty smoothly is another miracle. It's been around since 1939. It brings me hope that similar anarchic syndicates can form around other common interests.
On May 25 2018 21:56 RiKD wrote:
anywhere that was globalized in the USA's vision are climate change deniers too
What in the fuck does that even mean?
The US has a climage-change-denying president, he has no control over the house nor support from even his own party, so far he has pulled out from a meaningless agreement.
Meanwhile the supposedly pro-science left leaning leader of Geramny, Angela Merkel stopped all nuclear energy research and funding after the Fukushima event, because naturally that was going to be a popular opinion despide the fact that the cleanest and more logical option as a transitional energy source is nuclear power. Angela Merkel has been far more damaging for the environment than Trump has by far.
This is why protesting like Loco likes is retarded, going to the streets chanting how you want more fucking windmills or solar panels is idiotic, do you want to help? Then go and study a few years and help build and run thorium reactors, go clean your room before you try to change the world.
You're being kinda silly here.
It's fine that you disagree with Merkel on nuclear power, but it seems like your level of disagreement is completely blinding yourself to the wider efforts.. Germany has reduced their emissions by almost 30% compared to 1990 levels, even without a nuclear focus. American emission levels are virtually unchanged during the same period. (Granted there was very significant reduction between 2008 and 2012).
I mean, to me, there are legit reasons why you want to be skeptical towards nuclear power. Nuclear accidents are one type of accidents that we can't fix. (Although, seeing how the area around Chernobyl looks, part of me also thinks that maybe it's good if more areas are unlivable to humans - apparently humans are worse for animal life than radiation poisoning is). If you look at it from a probabilistic, 50 year time line, then nuclear power is absolutely amazing. But the longer the time period you're dealing with, the more likely it is that you get accidents that take thousands of years to clean up. I also don't really think we have a good way of handling waste from nuclear plants. At the same time, there's the potential for filling all energy needs in a way that most of the time causes very little direct pollution which makes transitioning away from fossil fuels - which is obviously important - much easier. Like, I'm not negative towards nuclear - but I think solar, wind, hydro and tidal-wave are all preferable. Either way I'm not really interested in having a debate about nuclear vs other renewables, whether nuclear is completely flawless isn't actually central to the argument I'm about to make. Both are vastly, vastly superior to fossil fuels in terms of environmental impact on a long term basis. Some renewables like solar at least used to have significant negative initial impact due to production costs, but the more time that passes, the better they end up looking.
Anyway my problem with this reoccurring argument of yours is that you're basically arguing that someone who doesn't care about reducing emissions because he doesn't accept climate change as a real problem of significance is better than someone who actually succeeds in significantly reducing emissions by transitioning over to more renewables because you're offended by the latter person's insistence on not using nuclear power. I don't think that's a sensible approach. Even with her opposition to nuclear, Merkel is still obviously preferable to the republican party on this issue. That's plainly obvious by comparing a) stated goals regarding emissions cutting and b) degree of success at attaining those goals.
She did it because it was popular, she took the opporunity to increase her popularity making a choice perhaps perfectly knowing that what she would do would impact negatively the environment, Trump did the same but popularity among their carbon-friends, but hurting nuclear power is far more damaging than getting out of symbolic agreements.
You are misinformed about nuclear power, read up on thorium reactors, they are perfectly safe even in the event of a meltdown, it runs on fuel much more available than Uranium, enough to power the world hundreds of years and the waste is perfectly managable.
Chernobyl could never happen again, that was caused by a ridiculously poor design, they used graphite which is flammable in the reactor and the smoke spread the radiation, using Chernobyl as a reason not to pursue nuclear power is like saying blimps are unsafe because of hindenburg... no we dont fill blimps with hydrogen anymore, thats crazy.
Germany is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, ofcourse it can afford to reduse emissions in a very costly way, but thats not the situation for most of the world, the reason why carbon-based fuel power plants are used in most of the world is because they have the best $/megawatt of all energy sources, Nuclear gives far better returns for the investment than other sources of clean energy.
If you believe India and China should go and try to live from solar you are delusional and ironically part of the problem, the world needs to hop on nuclear as a transitional energy source until we can master cold fusion or we discover another new source.
Also as a comment you mentioned all the negative parts of nuclear plants but you didn't mention or seem aware of the problems with other energy sources:
- Solar requires rare materials that are mined mostly from Africa, this mining is devastating for the environment there.
- Wind power not only has the worst $/W of all sources, but I've read about the impact it has on local bird populations to the pont of unbalancing the ecosystem
- HydroElectric is arguably as bad as fossil fuels since it destroys the ecosystem of the entire lenght of a river, even if the dam allows constant water flow slowing down rivers destroys the ecosystem, it creates swamps etc.
Honestly bro, you just haven't given capitalism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party.
Honestly bro, you just haven't given communism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party
Why am I not surprised that you predictably reduce communism to this. It's a Jordan Peterson play. A Fox News play. A Donald Trump play. I guess because it works. Humans don't understand complexity. Just to add a little bit to the picture there were ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved. Now, I realize that in today's world there will still likely be ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved that's why you start small. You start with groups and syndicates. There are no leaders only trusted servants. There is rotation of service. The syndicate should have no outside opinion nor should endorse or oppose anything outside of the syndicate's common interest.
AA gets a lot wrong but it gets the 12 Traditions right:
Disregard the "God" stuff. It is really just about an important common interest.
The fact the syndicate gets any alcoholic sober is a miracle. The fact that a bunch of selfish, self-centered fucks can work together for a common interest and it runs pretty smoothly is another miracle. It's been around since 1939. It brings me hope that similar anarchic syndicates can form around other common interests.
I reduced communism the same way capitalism was reduced, I just returned the favor with the exact same words.
Honestly bro, you just haven't given capitalism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party.
Honestly bro, you just haven't given communism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party
Why am I not surprised that you predictably reduce communism to this. It's a Jordan Peterson play. A Fox News play. A Donald Trump play. I guess because it works. Humans don't understand complexity. Just to add a little bit to the picture there were ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved. Now, I realize that in today's world there will still likely be ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved that's why you start small. You start with groups and syndicates. There are no leaders only trusted servants. There is rotation of service. The syndicate should have no outside opinion nor should endorse or oppose anything outside of the syndicate's common interest.
AA gets a lot wrong but it gets the 12 Traditions right:
Disregard the "God" stuff. It is really just about an important common interest.
The fact the syndicate gets any alcoholic sober is a miracle. The fact that a bunch of selfish, self-centered fucks can work together for a common interest and it runs pretty smoothly is another miracle. It's been around since 1939. It brings me hope that similar anarchic syndicates can form around other common interests.
I reduced communism the same way capitalism was reduced, I just returned the favor with the exact same words.
AA is garbage in every possible way ffs.
Quite a difference in rhetoric. Stalinism does not equal Marxism.
$50 billion could end world hunger and homelessness in the United States. How come nobody has done it? The billionaires can even start their own charities so they don't have to give to the state.
Did you even read the 12 traditions?
I made a link between AA and protests. There is the opportunity for great connection, solidarity, and fellowship.
It's even true of multinational corporations but in this case the means of coercing people for labor certainly does not justify profit. Putting up with laboring under coercion so one can have a chance at survival is no end in itself.
On May 26 2018 06:20 Loco wrote:
the fact that you bolded every sentence in your post. Wtf is the point of that? To show how important and truthful it is? It loses all effect if it's applied to the entire post...[quote]
Readability, the same reason why I try to keep my posts as short as possible not for you but because of anyone who might be reading. (guess i'll stop since it might get misinterpreted)
[quote]So apparently I'm a pro-bureaucracy guy now.
No, you are simply a guy who doesn't grasp the impact of the vast difference in efficiency between the private and the public sector.
Ok. Anyway, where are the graphs showing that cutting Medicaid and food stamps for the poor actually helps them because of le magix of trickle-down?
What this neoliberal dogma you despise has done to the world:
First of all hospital admins aren't the main problem with subsidized healthcare its the vices in the freemarket it creates, thats the reason why childbirth costs 40k
Second, the salaries are part of the program, government programs are run like that, not just in the US but thats overall how it works since there isn't a strong incentive for efficiency like the freemarket has.
I know that it is, that's why I mentioned it a dozen times. You believe in neoliberal dogma, I do not.
could you stop using such a muddied term when a "free market dogma" would work much better?
I also never said that it's about evil people who have no care at all for others
yes you literally said: "It's the best system for the few who do not care about others or the future"
(had to delete the post cuz I missclicked and edited your post instead of quoting it)
People don't have to intend to cause damage to support short sighted destructive policies, they only need to be ignorant.
totally agree, the raod to hell is paved with good intentions
Even you would never dare argue that wildlife has thrived since the advent of neoliberalism.
the 1st world is growing its forests back and protecting wildlife way better than they did many decades ago, there are still many problems but most of them are done in a particular growing stage that China is going through right now for example.
But as I said before the envronment problems are caused by overpopulation, no matter what system you chose population is the main problem.
Honestly bro, you just haven't given capitalism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party.
Honestly bro, you just haven't given communism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party
Why am I not surprised that you predictably reduce communism to this. It's a Jordan Peterson play. A Fox News play. A Donald Trump play. I guess because it works. Humans don't understand complexity. Just to add a little bit to the picture there were ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved. Now, I realize that in today's world there will still likely be ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved that's why you start small. You start with groups and syndicates. There are no leaders only trusted servants. There is rotation of service. The syndicate should have no outside opinion nor should endorse or oppose anything outside of the syndicate's common interest.
AA gets a lot wrong but it gets the 12 Traditions right:
Disregard the "God" stuff. It is really just about an important common interest.
The fact the syndicate gets any alcoholic sober is a miracle. The fact that a bunch of selfish, self-centered fucks can work together for a common interest and it runs pretty smoothly is another miracle. It's been around since 1939. It brings me hope that similar anarchic syndicates can form around other common interests.
I reduced communism the same way capitalism was reduced, I just returned the favor with the exact same words.
AA is garbage in every possible way ffs.
Quite a difference in rhetoric. Stalinism does not equal Marxism.
$50 billion could end world hunger and homelessness in the United States. How come nobody has done it? The billionaires can even start their own charities so they don't have to give to the state.
Did you even read the 12 traditions?
I made a link between AA and protests. There is the opportunity for great connection, solidarity, and fellowship.
The US budget on foreign aid is 42billion, obviously 50 billion wouldn't do shit for world poverty whoever came up with that is delusional.
Syndicates where I came from mean corruption, violence and political power
United States. May 26 2018 05:05. Posts 8564
