Random Thread

[Raphael]

At a time when unions are losing power, the claim that countries are becoming more socialist just because government spending is increasing is kind of dubious.

Who's making that claim? In which countries is government spending, as a share of GDP, significantly increasing in our time?

[rotting bones]

Who's making that claim? In which countries is government spending, as a share of GDP, significantly increasing in our time?

Germany had public expenditures at 46.5% of GDP in 1991, 49.87% in 2025. The GINI index was 29.5 in 1991, 31.4 in 2025. (I have to start at 1991, I can't locate figures for the FRG)
France had public expenditures at 53.6% of GDP in 1984, 57.34% in 2025. The GINI index was 33.4 in 1984, 31.2 in 2025.

Note: I never said "significantly".

[keenir]

The Indian government provides free healthcare, subsidized groceries and large scale bailouts of farmers that are basically routine. India is not socialist. It's a gig economy hellscape that's controlled by business owners. (Despite this, India wasn't able to create enough jobs to exploit the population boom that comes only once in the nation state's life cycle.)

why can it only come once?

? You might be underestimating the lengths to which capitalists will go to protect profits. E.g. The US healthcare system is the most expensive in the world and delivers worse outcomes than some cheaper alternatives. So much for efficiency.

Is that because of capitalism, or because of bad CEOs? Or do those not exist in socialist countries?

[Raphael]

? You might be underestimating the lengths to which capitalists will go to protect profits. E.g. The US healthcare system is the most expensive in the world and delivers worse outcomes than some cheaper alternatives. So much for efficiency.

Is that because of capitalism, or because of bad CEOs? Or do those not exist in socialist countries?

It can be easily argued that this particular type of bad CEO is a result of the hyper-capitalist Friedman Doctrine.

[rotting bones]

why can it only come once?

Educated and affluent women choose to have fewer kids because it hurts, it's annoying to raise them and having too many makes everyone in the family poorer. (It also makes the working class poorer in a market economy.)

Is that because of capitalism, or because of bad CEOs?

It's because capitalism rewards predatory behavior. Read Cockshott's Classical Econophysics: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15v5e44 ... p=drivesdk

If you want a non-Marxist book, I have heard good things about Chomsky's Consequences of Capitalism, but I've never read it.

Or do those not exist in socialist countries?

Under my proposal, capitalists will exist. They will not have workers by the balls because workers can vote for the government to produce the same items if the market refuses to. Personally, I think the market can produce luxury items with better quality, but it's better to have multiple sources in case your primary source tries to threaten you.

[keenir]

Or do those not exist in socialist countries?

Under my proposal, capitalists will exist.

my deepest apologies, then; I had not known or realized that you are running a socialist country.

[rotting bones]

there are these things humans are capable of having you know called thoughts? try having one some time

[keenir]

there are these things humans are capable of having you know called thoughts? try having one some time

Given your statements about age and capitalism, I don't need to think at my great age - i just need to hire an assassin to deal with you.

...

Seriously though, I freely admit that I got snippy and facetious (and maybe a few other things) recently, but in my defense, when I asked you if socialist countries' businessmen were as capable of corruption as capitalist countries' businessmen, your answer was "not in mine", so i apologized for not realizing you were a head of state (yes, toungue was in cheek, but remember the old joke about kids on the internet)

[Ares Land]

@rotting bones:

I don't really disagree with your points. You can get a very rough impression of a country's economy from certain indicators, with all caveats, and provided they're even reliable (for instance, you can't get a realistic figure for GINI for India), but no more.

France and Germany aren't socialist countries either(France wasn't in 1984 either, and neither was the FRG). They're capitalist countries with social measures and some socialist-inspired institutions -- many countries in Europe follow roughly the same model. My argument is that the model is relatively stable -- it hasn't changed that much in the last 30 years or so and despite what some conservatives would like, I don't expect those countries to convert to a libertarian free-for-all.

? You might be underestimating the lengths to which capitalists will go to protect profits. E.g. The US healthcare system is the most expensive in the world and delivers worse outcomes than some cheaper alternatives. So much for efficiency.

Is that because of capitalism, or because of bad CEOs? Or do those not exist in socialist countries?

I think in most developed countries, healthcare may be private but at the very least it's non-profit for most essential medical care; and insurance is compulsory for obvious reasons. (Even in Switzerland, which is otherwise very capitalistic.)

[rotting bones]

France and Germany aren't socialist countries either(France wasn't in 1984 either, and neither was the FRG). They're capitalist countries with social measures and some socialist-inspired institutions -- many countries in Europe follow roughly the same model. My argument is that the model is relatively stable -- it hasn't changed that much in the last 30 years or so and despite what some conservatives would like, I don't expect those countries to convert to a libertarian free-for-all.

What gives you so much confidence? Without unions to advocate for workers, centrist politicians will cite the rise of the far right everywhere to slowly chip away at protections. The far right has arisen because of capitalists manufacturing consent. It has already begun in the UK. I'm afraid I know very little about contemporary continental Europe.

[keenir]

Is that because of capitalism, or because of bad CEOs? Or do those not exist in socialist countries?

I think in most developed countries, healthcare may be private but at the very least it's non-profit for most essential medical care; and insurance is compulsory for obvious reasons. (Even in Switzerland, which is otherwise very capitalistic.)
[/quote]

thank you.

(and i could have phrased my question better; apologies to all)

[Ares Land]

What gives you so much confidence? Without unions to advocate for workers, centrist politicians will cite the rise of the far right everywhere to slowly chip away at protections. The far right has arisen because of capitalists manufacturing consent. It has already begun in the UK. I'm afraid I know very little about contemporary continental Europe.

"confidence" isn't the right word, given the rise of the far right. But I'd expect them to go full on ahead with the racism but leave social protections alone. The far right has a libertarian side, but as long as a far-right government is racist enough, they'll be happy.

Centrists and conservatives do try and chip away at protections, but it's a long and difficult process, and it doesn't always work out well.
That's part of the current stalemate in France; Macron did chip away at some protections and people didn't like it.

Positive factors that help are unions (which aren't important enough, but do matter a lot, especially compared to the US), a civil service and welfare net that function reasonably well, and I mean, general inertia (voters are used to social protections that actually work, so they're likely to protest when you try to attack these.)

[keenir]

I thought it over, and though I just recently ended a vacation, I think I am in need of a hiatus, for the good and safety of everyone here. I will do my best to keep off-forum for a week.

*shrugs* in theory, this means more time for working on my latest conscript...in theory.


I wish everyone a great time full of safety and enjoyability in all fields of life.

[malloc]

Nervous about my checkup tomorrow. Last year, my blood sugar was close to prediabetic so it's quite possible that I will get diagnosed with prediabetes or even full-blown diabetes. If so, that will make life even harder and require me to ditch the few luxuries I currently enjoy.

[Starbeam]

TL:DR, using AI might well work for a while, as long as you're lucky, and as long as you're lucky, you might well be better off than people who don't use AI because they're afraid of getting unlucky.

Capitalist competition keeps us in an perpetual state of emergency where producing nonsensical slop is better than nothing. There's no way people are going to stop using AI as long as these conditions persist.

This is too abstract to truly address. You're basically saying "we have to because we have to".

The whole point of the comment I linked to is that, in the short run, that might leave you behind those of your co-workers who do use the energy clog labor theft device and who have, so far, been lucky enough to avoid the pitfalls that might involve. Which, in a hypercompetitive environment, can be extremely bad for your future prospects.

As i said above, you're going to need to be more specific. I'm about as against generative AI, or at least its present form, as Malloc. I'm just not insecure or sheepish.

I agree with your comments, Raphael, re:idpol, but obviously you cannot make identity and experience your politics alone. To me, politics is largely about how you handle any "other" people and the environment.

[Raphael]

The whole point of the comment I linked to is that, in the short run, that might leave you behind those of your co-workers who do use the energy clog labor theft device and who have, so far, been lucky enough to avoid the pitfalls that might involve. Which, in a hypercompetitive environment, can be extremely bad for your future prospects.

As i said above, you're going to need to be more specific.

Well, you could click on the link that was in my original post https://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2025/10/a ... erall.html and read the comment that I was referring to in the post. As of now, it's still the only comment in the comments section there, and IMO it's quite detailed.

(I could quote it in its entirety here, but it's fairly lengthy, so I'm hesitant about the etiquette aspects of that:)

[rotting bones]

This is too abstract to truly address. You're basically saying "we have to because we have to".

No, I'm saying we should create a government that takes care of people so they can prioritize quality over slop.

[zompist]

The whole point of the comment I linked to is that, in the short run, that might leave you behind those of your co-workers who do use the energy clog labor theft device and who have, so far, been lucky enough to avoid the pitfalls that might involve. Which, in a hypercompetitive environment, can be extremely bad for your future prospects.

Well, you could click on the link that was in my original post https://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2025/10/a ... erall.html and read the comment that I was referring to in the post. As of now, it's still the only comment in the comments section there, and IMO it's quite detailed.

The lesson I'd draw from this anecdote is "don't use AI", but I understand that there is enormous pressure from CEOs to use it.

I know a bit about the consulting industry because my best friend worked in it for decades. The first guy has it about right: "if you are willing to be worked to death, we'll make you richer than God". The other thing about these places is that you have to generate reams of corporation-speak. In theory it has to be accurate, but the nature of the business is that errors will only be found later, so I can see the emphasis on getting text (that reads like every other text they've written) out quickly— which is what LLMs do.

It reminds me of the 1980s cyberpunk novels, which posited that corporations would erect massive, nearly impenetrable security in cyberspace that hackers would need enormous skills and high technology to penetrate. Ha ha! It turns out corporations barely bother with Internet security at all. Similarly, you pay consultants massive sums to do all this corporate gruntwork, and assume that they at least check their references. Haha no, they just churn it out without checking. (The excuse is always overwork, but jeez, hire a $15 an hour intern to look up the citations.)

[rotting bones]

The lesson I'd draw from this anecdote is "don't use AI", but I understand that there is enormous pressure from CEOs to use it.

The last I heard from industry: CEOs ran an analysis showing that coding models outperform junior engineers. They issued company-wide directives to automate as much of the coding as possible so they can impress investors with a hiring freeze. To be precise, what management directed engineers to do is to automate all coding so they don't need to employ any programmers, but even they acknowledge the data currently shows senior engineers using coding models outperform coding models alone. No one expects the explicit goal to be achieved with the models currently available.

This is why there's no way people will stop using AI. Engineers at NASA are using Cursor for coding. Meanwhile, software engineers have switched to Windsurf. If the LLM industry goes bust (and I'm hoping it will), they will probably switch to small language models. In fact, the language model industry has already implemented schemes to securely download weights onto the devices of users and run the models there. They want to offload the bill of executing the models onto users.

[rotting bones]

"confidence" isn't the right word, given the rise of the far right. But I'd expect them to go full on ahead with the racism but leave social protections alone. The far right has a libertarian side, but as long as a far-right government is racist enough, they'll be happy.

Centrists and conservatives do try and chip away at protections, but it's a long and difficult process, and it doesn't always work out well.
That's part of the current stalemate in France; Macron did chip away at some protections and people didn't like it.

Positive factors that help are unions (which aren't important enough, but do matter a lot, especially compared to the US), a civil service and welfare net that function reasonably well, and I mean, general inertia (voters are used to social protections that actually work, so they're likely to protest when you try to attack these.)

Americans don't like Trump cutting social programs either. The political establishment clearly thinks they can distract the voters by dangling hate in front of them. Will it work? I think the result will be fragmentation: Sometimes the fascists will win, sometimes the conservatives. Neither side will be good for the public at large.