Politics First Contact

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

Well, pretty much nobody is asking for full socialism though so you don't have anything to worry about. They want better social programs, health care, and safety net. 

It's kind of like when you bring up being libertarian and someone will inevitably suggest you want the most extreme full blown libertarian scenario they can think of when that's not really what you want at all.

Do you think the people who followed Chavez, Castro, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il sung, etc, etc imagined they were creating a society incomparably worse than the ones they wanted to improve? It is a problem when so much power rests in the hands of the people who control the state. The outcomes you are hoping for in not guaranteed. It might be far worse. Socialist economic systems, even the "happy" kind that people think they want, presents an opportunity for the state to control the majority of the economy. Power makes monsters.

 

Shady answer me honestly. In the age of Trump, warrantless searches, data mining, the NSA literally spying on us, police brutality almost out of control, expansion of regulation over private property at the state level, expanding eminent domain seizures at every level, Obama and his drone strikes on American citizens, the IRS suppressing political activity, I could go on; with all of this happening do YOU trust your government? If the answer is "yes" then you haven't been paying attention. If it's "no" then surely the expansion of their power that comes with even "happy" socialism would be  madness. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by Guard Dog

[ShadySands]

I just want to be able to get sick without losing everything and I think that's a far cry from some communist revolution.

After spending some time in countries with universal healthcare and the like I've got to say that I never saw anything like death squads and dictatorships. Except in Canada.

Edited November 13, 2019 by ShadySands

[smjjames]

I should note that Hitler wasn't a socialist, check your history @Guard Dog

[213374U]

The "Nazi means National Socialist, ergo literally Hitler was really a pinko lefty" thing has been a meme around these parts for some time now. Usually I immediately counter with a Carl Marks ☭ = 卐 jpeg, but I cba anymore, honestly.

Edited November 13, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Malcador]

8 minutes ago, smjjames said:

I should note that Hitler wasn't a socialist, check your history @Guard Dog

And now we GOTO 40...

19 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The outcomes you are hoping for in not guaranteed. It might be far worse

Might be far better as well, no ?  May be the thin edge of the wedge and all, but seems unlikely that having socialized health care or medicine is going to lead to the Killing Fields 2.0

[Skarpen]

46 minutes ago, 213374U said:

I think I've brought this up before, but you are operating on the premise of a completely fictional worker-employer power dynamics. And after going over this topic for what feels like the nth time in ten ****ing years, I am not inclined to educate you. Even less so considering that this is in the intellectually dishonest context of "working smart ≡ making billions of dollars". I'll give you a hint, though: the labor market is NOT a perfectly competitive environment, and monopsonies like Amazon do NOT negotiate on an equal footing.

The beauty of it is nobody needs to put a gun to anyone's head (in first world countries at least). The threat of hunger and homelessness is more than enough, and it tends to minimize the risk of violent revolt compared to other means of coercion.

The negotiation is of course equal employee can say yes or no and employer can say yes or no. That's it.

There is literally tens of thousands other options than working for Amazon. All Amazon employees could quit tomorrow and the only one without a job in few months would be Bezos. The funny thing is that his employees are the ones having the power right now because if they would leave in huge numbers the structure wouldn't be sustainable. But they won't. You know why? Because it's a great job for them not requiring much effort. Sure they might "protest" to get a few bucks more or a more comfy chair but the bottom line is they want to work there.

 BTW it always make me chuckle when someone bring the "starving and homeless" argument. So basically job at Amazon is saving you from starving and homelessness? This is FANTASTIC how anyone could be mad at someone who is saving you from starvation and homelessness. Imagine that you take your friend home giving him food and shelter and he complains and hates you for it. Talk about being ungrateful.

 As for working smart=billions I never said that. You seem to think that if you don't earn billions you somehow failed. Don't be so hard on yourself. You can play football with your kids in backyard and with friends on weekends, you don't have to be Messi all of a sudden to be happy.

 Not everybody can be billionaire but not everybody aspire to be one. Sure everyone would like "to have" billions but to earn them? Not so much. And that's ok. It's extremely competitive and demanding physically, psychically and it takes it's toll. I like watching athletes and I would like to be in such great physical shape but I don't want to put hundreds of hours and my personal life on the line to do so. I'm happy with few hours a week exercising to have a good shape and health and spend my time on other things. Doesn't mean I failed at anything.

 

So my advice is stop beating yourself up because you don't have Bezos level of money. Find what's best for you and be happy.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Skarpen
spelling

[Guard Dog]

National socialism is not really socialism as Marx and Engels imagined it. It does not really check many boxes on the modern definitions of it either. It would be a stretch to compare the two although there are similarities. But by adding Hitler to that list I was really more thinking about people who lead the “downtrodden“ to overthrow the status quo in hopes of something better. And got something far worse.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Let me throw this idea out there. What would you guys say to a publicly managed healthcare if the federal government played absolutely no role in it? Suppose it were administrated paid for and managed by the individual states solely for the benefit of the citizens of those states? And just to keep the proposal realistic and affordable suppose it was only for catastrophic illness. If you’ve got cancer we’ve got you covered. If you have a cold you’re on your own. What would you guys say to that? No Uncle Sam. Not even a little bit.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

12 hours ago, Skarpen said:

And when the owner does the same is ok? Owner takes a loan and start business taking huge risk but the emplyees cannot do the same?

The amount of capital needed to start up a mining operation is out of reach for most wageslaves in developed countries even if they did band together to start a mining co-op, whether through simple denial by financial institutions or absurd interests rates. Significantly more so for African miners in the elite fella's example. Conversely business owner has significantly better access to capital (loan and wealth) and has the ability to eat the loss whether through accumulated wealth or state bailouts.

[smjjames]

Isn't that the current situation for everything outside of Medicare/Medicaid and ACA? Maybe a little better example would be the situation before Obama tried his hand at reforming the healthcare system.

I don't know much about the healthcare system, but I do know that it was generally a heck of a lot worse then and was in a downward spiral before Obama did reforms.

For administered and paid by the states, that already happens with Medicare/Medicaid/ACA.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

45 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I just want to be able to get sick without losing everything and I think that's a far cry from some communist revolution

It's more likely the US government gets overthrown than it implementing free healthcare.

[smjjames]

2 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

The amount of capital needed to start up a mining operation is out of reach for most wageslaves in developed countries even if they did band together to start a mining co-op, whether through simple denial by financial institutions or absurd interests rates. Significantly more so for African miners in the elite fella's example. Conversely business owner has significantly better access to capital (loan and wealth) and has the ability to eat the loss whether through accumulated wealth or state bailouts.

Barring some kind of California or Yukon gold rush scenario anyway.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Just now, smjjames said:

Barring some kind of California or Yukon gold rush scenario anyway.

Yes, barring a historical aberration.

[smjjames]

Well, less aberration than 'the conditions and environment that foster/allow said event to be present.'

[HoonDing]

Hitler was a Buddhist.

[Skarpen]

3 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

The amount of capital needed to start up a mining operation is out of reach for most wageslaves in developed countries even if they did band together to start a mining co-op, whether through simple denial by financial institutions or absurd interests rates. Significantly more so for African miners in the elite fella's example. Conversely business owner has significantly better access to capital (loan and wealth) and has the ability to eat the loss whether through accumulated wealth or state bailouts.

Ugh, dude it's an example. But there was a new middle sized coal mine financed in Poland for 30 million PLN, which is around 8 million USD. Let's round it up to 10 million. You telling me that in US 20 guys cannot get 400K loan each? Or 80 guys cannot get 100K loan each? That's not even a business loan it would be like regular cash loan you take for a car or something. Let's not think multi billion organization from scratch ok? There are smaller businesses than international corporations and smaller amounts than billions, ok?

[smjjames]

4 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

Hitler was a Hindu.

FIFY, better fits the joke you're making. Though the general whorl/spiral shape isn't confined to Asia.

[Guard Dog]

32 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Isn't that the current situation for everything outside of Medicare/Medicaid and ACA? Maybe a little better example would be the situation before Obama tried his hand at reforming the healthcare system.

I don't know much about the healthcare system, but I do know that it was generally a heck of a lot worse then and was in a downward spiral before Obama did reforms.

For administered and paid by the states, that already happens with Medicare/Medicaid/ACA.

No, Medicare is entirely Federal. Medicaid is joint state and Federal. The ACA is a fancy way of subsidized private health insurance. I’m talking about free public healthcare for everyone over a certain dollar figure. In other words if you need stitches you pay yourself or with private insurance. If you have a heart attack or need a knee replacement then your fellow citizens pick up the bill over a certain dollar amount. Consider it a state run catastrophic insurance. It would not be as subject abuses and rationing.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Guard Dog

[smjjames]

Sounds like you're describing a lite version of 'free healthcare', or perhaps 'free healthcare that allows private insurance to exist'. Course though, the 'above a certain dollar amount' is something that isn't going to be agreed on, especially given how hospitals charge ridiculous amounts for things that would cost little to none elsewhere.

[213374U]

9 hours ago, Skarpen said:

The negotiation is of course equal employee can say yes or no and employer can say yes or no. That's it.

Only the employee will be without a job (and at risk of exposure), but the employer can just keep offering the same **** conditions to more candidates, until one accepts, as provided by the reserve army of labour.

 

9 hours ago, Skarpen said:

There is literally tens of thousands other options than working for Amazon. All Amazon employees could quit tomorrow and the only one without a job in few months would be Bezos. The funny thing is that his employees are the ones having the power right now because if they would leave in huge numbers the structure wouldn't be sustainable. But they won't. You know why? Because it's a great job for them not requiring much effort. Sure they might "protest" to get a few bucks more or a more comfy chair but the bottom line is they want to work there.

Do you live in a parallel universe or something where demand for jobs is lower than offer? Because in most of the developed world, it's the other way around. Seriously, it's hard to have a conversation on this topic when you don't even have the basics such as structural unemployment and underemployment rates down.

No, Bezos isn't going to be "out of a job" in any sense of the word because he can close shop tomorrow and walk away without ever having to work again, unlike his workers. And no, they weren't protesting to get more comfy chairs, they were striking to get basic working conditions, such as air conditioning in warehouses with temperatures higher than 35 ºC where physical work is done.

 

9 hours ago, Skarpen said:

 BTW it always make me chuckle when someone bring the "starving and homeless" argument. So basically job at Amazon is saving you from starving and homelessness? This is FANTASTIC how anyone could be mad at someone who is saving you from starvation and homelessness. Imagine that you take your friend home giving him food and shelter and he complains and hates you for it. Talk about being ungrateful.

Wew lad. Is it customary in Poland to exploit your "friends" and steal the fruits of their labor (when not their wages outright) when you give them food and shelter? You have the gist of it, though. The job is the only thing protecting your friend from exposure, and therefore the power relationship between you and your employee friend is NOT equal. As I said.

 

9 hours ago, Skarpen said:

 As for working smart=billions I never said that. You seem to think that if you don't earn billions you somehow failed. Don't be so hard on yourself. You can play football with your kids in backyard and with friends on weekends, you don't have to be Messi all of a sudden to be happy.

No, that's just goalpost shifting that you need to do so that the whole thing doesn't crumble (as much). First it was that the system rewards hard work. Only it obviously doesn't, so it was redefined as "smart work". But only those who cross an arbitrary profit threshold apparently know how to do that. Their success is explained by "working smart" by those who don't want to look too closely, and the process of becoming successful is described as "smart work". In short, they are successful because they succeeded, not because they worked hard. It's circular logic, it's nonsense. It's a meaningless buzzword.

 

9 hours ago, Skarpen said:

 Not everybody can be billionaire but not everybody aspire to be one. Sure everyone would like "to have" billions but to earn them? Not so much. And that's ok. It's extremely competitive and demanding physically, psychically and it takes it's toll. I like watching athletes and I would like to be in such great physical shape but I don't want to put hundreds of hours and my personal life on the line to do so. I'm happy with few hours a week exercising to have a good shape and health and spend my time on other things. Doesn't mean I failed at anything.

Hold up. I thought we just established that you don't need to work hard to make billions, just smart. But now you're giving me this sob story about how tough it is to be a billionaire and likening it to the sacrifice and mental and physical fortitude required to be a professional athlete. Which one is it going to be, this page?

Anyway, yeah. I'm not so convinced after you suggested that it should be easy to get a $100k loan for a co-op mine together with another 79 have-nots because you can apparently get a mine running for $10M now, and then somehow forgot that operating costs are a thing from day 0, unlike revenue. I'm not getting the "smart" work vibe here at all.

Edited November 14, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Skarpen]

26 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Only the employee will be without a job (and at risk of exposure), but the employer can just keep offering the same **** conditions to more candidates, until one accepts, as provided by the reserve army of labour.

 

Do you live in a parallel universe or something where demand for jobs is lower than offer? Because in most of the developed world, it's the other way around. Seriously, it's hard to have a conversation on this topic when you don't even have the basics such as structural unemployment and underemployment rates down.

No mate, I live in Poland where unemployment rate is circa 5%, expected to hit below 4% next year and if I remember correctly you live in US where it's 3,6%. This is the employee market. I mean the level of struggle my current company goes through to hire a good employee is ridiculous. We needed 4 people in January, managed to get two till now. There is no one to choose from.

I worked in Poland a couple of years back when the unemployment rate exceeded 20%, yes mate, over 20% unemployment. THAT was the time when there were literal labor army sitting in front of companies looking for work and the words "I have 20 guys on your place" wasn't a figure of speech, but an understatement. 

So if I would have to say which one of us lives in paralel universe and don't know a thing about real word I would point to you. It seem to me you live quite a comfy life under a comfy bubble.

Quote

No, Bezos isn't going to be "out of a job" in any sense of the word because he can close shop tomorrow and walk away without ever having to work again, unlike his workers. And no, they weren't protesting to get more comfy chairs, they were striking to get basic working conditions, such as air conditioning in warehouses with temperatures higher than 35 ºC where physical work is done.

I'm sorry air condition in warehouses is somehow "basic condition" now? No, sorry, it's not. Because I'm familiar with labor laws in Europe I can tell you the most common one is heating when the temperature drops below certain temperature and the down limit of temperature you can work in. In most countries there is no upper limit of temperature it's mostly need to provide employees with water when the temperature is higher than average. So no mate, AC is not "basic" and not "common", so they are fighting for better conditions (i.e. "more comfy chair") and that's ok, but don't paint this as a fight for basic human rights. It's ridiculous and insulting to people who really are fighting for their lives.

Quote

No, that's just goalpost shifting that you need to do so that the whole thing doesn't crumble (as much). First it was that the system rewards hard work. Only it obviously doesn't, so it was redefined as "smart work". But only those who cross an arbitrary profit threshold apparently know how to do that. Their success is explained by "working smart" by those who don't want to look too closely, and the process of becoming successful is described as "smart work". In short, they are successful because they succeeded, not because they worked hard. It's circular logic, it's nonsense. It's a meaningless buzzword.

Hold up. I thought we just established that you don't need to work hard to make billions, just smart. But now you're giving me this sob story about how tough it is to be a billionaire and likening it to the sacrifice and mental and physical fortitude required to be a professional athlete. Which one is it going to be, this page?

First of all you invent some statement and then accuse me of saying them. This is not a way to have conversation. Never talked about hard work, it was you. I said if you work smart, have something to offer (like valuable skill set) you will be doing fine. I never said it will give you billions or that anyone can be billionaire. I even said the opposite. 

You still seem to be fixated on the notion billions or bust. That's not how world or economy works. But it can be done as a quick read of billionaire list will show us, it can be done in one lifetime, no inheritance required.

You also seem to have this ridiculous notion that if someone is out of work for 5 second his life would be ruined. That's not how life work. People have some money or they have friends or family that can help them get by, houses are not taken if you are late on one payment and you don't get evicted if you are late a day or two. Maybe there are some cases where you will die horrible death if you loose your job today but that must be lik 0.00000000000000001% of cases. I think you should meet more working people and not get your info from rich teens socialist social club.

Quote

Anyway, yeah. I'm not so convinced after you suggested that it should be easy to get a $100k loan for a co-op mine together with another 79 have-nots because you can apparently get a mine running for $10M now, and then somehow forgot that operating costs are a thing from day 0, unlike revenue. I'm not getting the "smart" work vibe here at all.

I was making a quick example not writing a dissertation or business plan here. I didn't forgot about anything, just given a simple example, it seems it's too complex of an idea to comprehend by some. There are literally hundred of thousands of people getting loans and starting their businesses every day around the world. 99,9999999999999% of those are not corporations and don't require billions of $ in loans. You can open a restaurant, it don't have to be multinational franchise. Poking around an example will not make your claim, that only billionaires can open a business and it's out of reach for average Joe to be anything other than Bezos minion, less ridiculous and detached from reality.

[majestic]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

Anyway, yeah. I'm not so convinced after you suggested that it should be easy to get a $100k loan for a co-op mine together with another 79 have-nots because you can apparently get a mine running for $10M now, and then somehow forgot that operating costs are a thing from day 0, unlike revenue. I'm not getting the "smart" work vibe here at all.

Would you like to buy some bootstraps?

[ktchong]

On 11/8/2019 at 8:25 AM, Gfted1 said:

Vote Yang!!

At some point, BOTH Tulsi and Yang will have to drop out of the Democratic primary because:

(1) They both draw from the same pools of support of Bernie and progressives, so they are actually taking support and votes away from Bernie in the primary.  If either Tulsi and Yang drops out, most of their base will move to Bernie.  People who support Tulsi or Yang ain’t moving to some neoliberal corporatist establishment candidate like Biden, Bootyjuggs or Kamala.

(2) The only way for either Tulsi and Yang to win is for Bernie to drop out, which will cause the majority of Bernie’s base to split and join Tulsi and Yang.

SPOILER ALERT: Bernie ain’t dropping out.

(3) Bernie is the front-running anti-establishment progressive candidate, and he is way ahead of either Tulsi and Yang – OR even Tulsi and Yang combined.  There is no way for Tulsi or Yang to catch up to Bernie in this election cycle.

(4) Tulsi and her husbands are not a Christian – she is Hindu.  Yang and his wife are Chinese ethnic.  Those identity issues will become HUGE liabilities in the general election, much like how Bootyjugg being gay is the elephant in the room that will be a huge liability in the general election against Trump.  A lot of Americans simply will not vote for a pagan, Chinese or gay person to be the president.

(5) I don’t mind Tulsi and Yang stay in the debates to bring attention to the very important issues of forever wars and robocalypse. However, if they continue to stay in the race when the primary officially begins, then they will become the spoilers for progressives. At some point, they will need to drop out and move their support and votes to Bernie, so that progressives can consolidate support and votes behind one candidate, the one who is most likely to win. I’m Asian and I’d like to see an Asian president, (Tulsi is half-Asian,) but I’m realistic enough to know it ain’t happening in this cycle.

Even though Bernie's age continues to bother me, but he is the progressive candidate who has the best chance of winning.

For the greater good: to defeat the neoliberal corporatist establishment.

Edited November 14, 2019 by ktchong

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, ktchong said:

 

For the greater good: to defeat the neoliberal corporatist establishment.

What an enemy, imagine having to actually suggest meaningful and sustainable policies and or laws to defeat " the neoliberal corporatist establishment " 

Can  we at least identify this foe so we all on the same page, who exactly are this group that we need to win against. For me this is just another sweeping statement that is common in populist groups, anarchists and anti-establishment people but when it comes to reasonable outcomes and strategies these comments lack constructive suggestions 

 

[Guard Dog]

I enjoy discussing things like socialism (happy or otherwise) and capitalism from a philosophical viewpoint. The practical application of any economic system is messy. Nothing is all of one thing or another. And the political system of the country muddies the water even more. Usually exploiting  whatever is there for it's own ends and those of the people in the government. Governments, like private companies, are made up of people. They are every bit as greedy, selfish, venal, and vainglories as the "evil" corporations you guys rail against. The difference is governments have men with guns who will happily kill you. Amazon cannot take a penny from me I don't freely give them. Tipton County TN can take everything I own including my life. Who should I really be afraid of here? You see why I recoil from any economic system whose very existence give MORE power to the men with guns?

Edited November 14, 2019 by Guard Dog