United States Politics Thread 47

[keenir]

Lobotomize all the geniuses. Problem solved.

but you're a smart person. I don't want you or anyone else here to be lobotomized!

[rotting bones]

at risk of stating something that is obvious at least to me: pay a better wager to the "populations who are willing to work more cheaply" and hey presto, you have a new market of buyers.

If you pay workers more, then profit goes down, disappointing stockholders. Capitalism is like a perpetual motion machine. There is at least one point where you are violating the laws of primary school arithmetic.

and yet capitalist societies produce nonprofit aid agencies to help those who have fewer counters, as well as producing for-profit companies that do pro bono work in those fewer-counter countries (whether giving free laptops, building wells for villages, etc)

Corporations get tax exemption and better deals in global markets.

Except what do we do about the things that we can pay for, but don't yet know what we want to ask for?

Patreon with votes instead of money.

but you're a smart person. I don't want you or anyone else here to be lobotomized!

Don't worry, geniuses are fucking idiots. Nothing of value will be lost.

[Torco]

Degrowth is a flawed idea not only because growth is a necessary input to the military power to resist foreign conquest but also because, if everyone agreed to do it, the only way to get ahead in life (which people who grew up with reliably potable tap water and three fresh meals a day take as reflecting poor character, because they are fools) would be through violence.

us commies been saying this for a long time. capitalism, taken to its logical conclussion, is... bad.

Alice is a technical writer ($85k/yr, 40 hrs/wk) with an asset portfolio including part-ownership of McDonald's and Nike. What class is Alice?
Bob is an Amazon warehouse manager ($80k/yr, 40+ hrs/wk) who lives frugally in order to maximize the amount of money he puts in the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. What class is Bob?
Charlie is an experienced welder ($36.00/hr) who does the same thing as Bob. What class is Charlie?
Dan is an experienced welder ($37.50/hr) who's not so good with financial instruments and doesn't really know what stock markets are. Most of his net worth is in his house. What class is Dan?

these are easy

alice: depends on her portfolio. if she's got enough stuff that she's making a living out of it? then she's at least potentially burgeois, and if she also works then she's dual class: she has all of the class interests of burgeois and workers together but weighed in, plus baseline human variation.
bob: same
charlie: same
dan: worker
ewan, even if his house is worth so much he *could* change classes: worker
ewan, if she does sell his grampa's 20 million dollar house, buys 6 apartments, and lives off those?: unambiguosly PB
dylan (guy who makes whatever and owns nothing, and indeed may be in debt and have a negative net worth): worker

a funny side-effect of this framework is that retirees, under privatized pension systems, also come to acquire the class interest of the burgeoisie, at least individually [or some of them, such as cost-of-living matters: the class interest of the petit-brugeoisie, anyway: the stocks doing well and what have you.

* imagine a living is 50k a year, tho i can probably be sold on 20k or on 80k, i've no idea what it costs to live in the states beyond "i guess 2k a month or sth plus groceries and whatever else so 3k?"

[keenir]

at risk of stating something that is obvious at least to me: pay a better wager to the "populations who are willing to work more cheaply" and hey presto, you have a new market of buyers.

If you pay workers more, then profit goes down, disappointing stockholders.

don't stockholders get excited and happy when you have more customers, though?

and yet capitalist societies produce nonprofit aid agencies to help those who have fewer counters, as well as producing for-profit companies that do pro bono work in those fewer-counter countries (whether giving free laptops, building wells for villages, etc)

Corporations get tax exemption and better deals in global markets.

what does that have to do with companies that give free products to the needy for free or nearly so?

{like at least one clothing company gives one of whatever you buy (ie socks) to a homeless shelter for free}

Except what do we do about the things that we can pay for, but don't yet know what we want to ask for?

Patreon with votes instead of money.

I don't know any grocery stores that have a patreon.

and how do I know what to vote for, when I haven't experienced it? (again, ie jicamas)

but you're a smart person. I don't want you or anyone else here to be lobotomized!

Don't worry, geniuses are fucking idiots. Nothing of value will be lost.

I disagree; you have contributed a great deal to the conversations here in this forum, and I don't doubt to other forums and other places.

[rotting bones]

don't stockholders get excited and happy when you have more customers, though?

No, they get excited when they can afford bigger houses and more expensive vacations because the company was more profitable.

what does that have to do with companies that give free products to the needy for free or nearly so?

{like at least one clothing company gives one of whatever you buy (ie socks) to a homeless shelter for free}

Charitable donations are a way to maximize profit. They bring tax exemption $$$ and freer access to markets like in raw material extraction. $ = profit = happier shareholders. Because of these perverse incentives, a lot of charities do way more harm than good.

I don't know any grocery stores that have a patreon.

They are all registered with a small handful of institutions. Imagine a different world where they are allocated job creating power through Patreon votes.

and how do I know what to vote for, when I haven't experienced it? (again, ie jicamas)

If you like a store, you vote to support them. I don't understand the problem, since this stops neither stores nor Patreon. Patreon even allows you to browse for creators by genre. Presumably, someone uses that feature.

[Raphael]

at risk of stating something that is obvious at least to me: pay a better wager to the "populations who are willing to work more cheaply" and hey presto, you have a new market of buyers.

If you pay workers more, then profit goes down, disappointing stockholders.

don't stockholders get excited and happy when you have more customers, though?

Getting more customers as an indirect result of paying employees more takes time. Investors these days generally think very short term.

[keenir]

what does that have to do with companies that give free products to the needy for free or nearly so?

{like at least one clothing company gives one of whatever you buy (ie socks) to a homeless shelter for free}

Charitable donations are a way to maximize profit. They bring tax exemption $$$ and freer access to markets like in raw material extraction. $ = profit = happier shareholders. Because of these perverse incentives, a lot of charities do way more harm than good.

you're the only person I know, who considers free socks a bad thing.

I don't know any grocery stores that have a patreon.

They are all registered with a small handful of institutions. Imagine a different world where they are allocated job creating power through Patreon votes.

because voting never results in bad things, right?

and how do I know what to vote for, when I haven't experienced it? (again, ie jicamas)

If you like a store, you vote to support them. I don't understand the problem, since this stops neither stores nor Patreon. Patreon even allows you to browse for creators by genre.

well thats great for people who don't like trying new things, or who are fine with never getting new opportunities.

I guess in your hypothetical world, I'd never learn what jicamas taste like, or that nori tastes good even without the fish or rice.

[rotting bones]

Getting more customers as an indirect result of paying employees more takes time. Investors these days generally think very short term.

More customers doesn't necessarily translate to more profit. More customers could mean less profit if you're losing money on every transaction.

[rotting bones]

you're the only person I know, who considers free socks a bad thing.

It could be a bad thing if it's part of a Machiavellian scheme that involves polluting your water and impoverishing your community. Do you eat every piece of candy that strangers hand you?

Try Googling the negative consequences of charity. There have been whole movements by now that have tried to sort the effectively altruistic efforts from the rest. Sort of like effective altruism, if you will.

because voting never results in bad things, right?

Less bad than a boot stomping your face, I guess.

well thats great for people who don't like trying new things, or who are fine with never getting new opportunities.

I guess in your hypothetical world, I'd never learn what jicamas taste like, or that nori tastes good even without the fish or rice.

Did capitalists pry your mouth open and shove them down your throat? What chain of causation led to your trying it that cannot be reproduced with votes?

Under capitalism, the owners open a store. If they get customers, they thrive.

With votes, the owners open a store. If they get votes on Patreon, they thrive. You'd think new stuff would be more common in this system since more people have votes than money. E.g. A lot of zompist's fans would like to support his website on Patreon, but they don't have the money. With my system, everyone would have the option to support him by voting for him on Patreon.

Apparently, capitalist propaganda doesn't agree, but this makes no sense to me. If anything, the opposite charge might be a better criticism of my system: There may be too many memes and random shit that end up getting government support without expert censorship. I would enjoy this, but it could be an issue for Serious PeopleTM.

And that doesn't even go into the fact that essentials are essential, i.e. way more important than jicamas or whatever else I've never eaten and will never have the money to try.

[keenir]

you're the only person I know, who considers free socks a bad thing.

It could be a bad thing if it's part of a Machiavellian scheme that involves polluting your water and impoverishing your community.

sometimes a kind action is just a kind action. I realize that that may make Baby Engels cry, but *shrugs*

(yes, i know the original phrasing was "makes baby jesus cry"...i figured this might be more effective for you)

Do you eat every piece of candy that strangers hand you?

look, you've already admitted you don't believe in that Marxism stuff...so please stop trying to sound edgy and rude.

because voting never results in bad things, right?

Less bad than a boot stomping your face, I guess.

I think Trump would leap at the chance.

well thats great for people who don't like trying new things, or who are fine with never getting new opportunities.

I guess in your hypothetical world, I'd never learn what jicamas taste like, or that nori tastes good even without the fish or rice.

Did capitalists pry your mouth open and shove them down your throat? What chain of causation led to your trying it that cannot be reproduced with votes?

I went to a store, looked at the grocery items that I was familiar with, and saw a new grocery item next to them, and I figured I'd take advantage of the price to try one out.

okay, voting is easy? fine...here's your options:

a. Chicken c...
b. Chicken m...
c. Chicken m...
d. Chicken m...

its maybe easy to tell which one is chicken (chopped)...but which one is Mountain Chicken, which is Mashed Chicken, and which one is Chicken & Mashed Potatoes?

welcome to voting on Patreon or anywhere else online. you don't always get all the space you need. also, which of those are you familiar with, and which will you try eating, based on its appearance on the vote?

Under capitalism, the owners open a store. If they get customers, they thrive.

in your prior post, you told me that getting customers - and even if they get more customers - they go out of business.

With votes, the owners open a store. If they get votes on Patreon, they thrive. You'd think new stuff would be more common in this system since more people have votes than money. E.g. A lot of zompist's fans would like to support his website on Patreon, but they don't have the money. With my system, everyone would have the option to support him by voting for him on Patreon.

only if they know he's there.

if everyone can only vote on known issues or known creators, then thats great...for the issues and creators they already know about.

I have a patreon too - and for five years, I've only had one subscriber. Clearly there is a problem with your system - by what you've said, I should be swimming in supporters just like Zompist.

And that doesn't even go into the fact that essentials are essential, i.e. way more important than jicamas or whatever else I've never eaten and will never have the money to try.

its $1.50 US dollars per jicama, because of how big they are. also, jicamas are food - I already classed them as one of the root veggies...was I too subtle about them being edible?

[rotting bones]

sometimes a kind action is just a kind action. I realize that that may make Baby Engels cry, but *shrugs*

(yes, i know the original phrasing was "makes baby jesus cry"...i figured this might be more effective for you)

Nothing is ever itself except maybe the universe as a whole. Google the surrounding context.

look, you've already admitted you don't believe in that Marxism stuff...so please stop trying to sound edgy and rude.

Of course I believe in it in the ordinary sense. I have posted evidence and proofs for it. I have given links to scientific papers that vindicate it. The kind of disbelief I have is general skepticism. I also have doubts about whether you are real or a hallucination.

What's rude is arguing I don't get to eat because you like rare vegetables.

I went to a store, looked at the grocery items that I was familiar with, and saw a new grocery item next to them, and I figured I'd take advantage of the price to try one out.

Open your store. Add the item jicama. See if customers like it. If they do, tell them to vote for you on Patreon.

in your prior post, you told me that getting customers - and even if they get more customers - they go out of business.

Stores normally sell only if they are making a profit on the transaction. If companies tried to make workers wealthy like you said, they would be operating at a loss. In that case, you need to have negative customers to be profitable.

Depending on how wealthy they want the workers to be, it may not be a complete loss. But if they're not making as much profit as they can, shareholders will be unhappy.

only if they know he's there.

if everyone can only vote on known issues or known creators, then thats great...for the issues and creators they already know about.

Find the store by walking around, seeing ads, finding their website. Same as usual.

its $1.50 US dollars per jicama, because of how big they are

At the very least, a bus ride to a store which carries them, costing time and money. Also, in India, $1.50 is 3 full sized meals. For Indians, buying one avocado is a huge expenditure.

I have a patreon too - and for five years, I've only had one subscriber.

I would like to support many more creators than I do, but I don't because I can't afford it. We would have more to spend if rich assholes didn't keep stowing it all away.

Under my proposal, everything would be exactly the same, except most people would have more buying power.

[rotting bones]

in your prior post, you told me that getting customers - and even if they get more customers - they go out of business.

Stores normally sell only if they are making a profit on the transaction. If companies tried to make workers wealthy like you said, they would be operating at a loss. In that case, you need to have negative customers to be profitable.

Depending on how wealthy they want the workers to be, it may not be a complete loss. But if they're not making as much profit as they can, shareholders will be unhappy.

Note that what makes these transactions zero sum is not some inherent property of money, but the fact that the institutions charged with creating money are for profit organizations that are expected to rake in more beans than they spend.

[keenir]

sometimes a kind action is just a kind action. I realize that that may make Baby Engels cry, but *shrugs*

(yes, i know the original phrasing was "makes baby jesus cry"...i figured this might be more effective for you)

Nothing is ever itself except maybe the universe as a whole.

so then capitalism isn't really bad, because capitalism isn't capitalism. problem solved.

Google the surrounding context.

which context was this? that the Tasting History youtube channel was sponsored by a company that sends free socks to the needy, every time someone bought a pair of socks?

look, you've already admitted you don't believe in that Marxism stuff...so please stop trying to sound edgy and rude.

Of course I believe in it in the ordinary sense. I have posted evidence and proofs for it. I have given links to scientific papers that vindicate it. The kind of disbelief I have is general skepticism. I also have doubts about whether you are real or a hallucination.

I'm just one of the voices in your head.

next time someone other than you replies to me, think about what that means.

What's rude is arguing I don't get to eat because you like rare vegetables.

earlier in that post, you're using binary logic to say that either people are kept starving by their employers, or they are paid in gold bars and wheelbarrows full of cash...now you're just lying.

I never said you don't get to eat.

I said its unfair of you to say that I can't go to a grocery store and look around for a good deal or a new foodstuff, because you want us to vote on what we eat.

last time I went to vote IRL, there were at least 5 canidates for the job of US President. One was Harris, one was Trump...and the others, I had never heard of before.

now, should we have voted for someone nobody has heard of before? you want us voting for foods we've never heard of, after all.

I went to a store, looked at the grocery items that I was familiar with, and saw a new grocery item next to them, and I figured I'd take advantage of the price to try one out.

Open your store. Add the item jicama. See if customers like it. If they do, tell them to vote for you on Patreon.

I'm starting to wonder if you taught Malloc how to read, or if Malloc taught you.

I don't own a grocery store -- I visited a grocery store.

in your prior post, you told me that getting customers - and even if they get more customers - they go out of business.

Stores normally sell only if they are making a profit on the transaction. If companies tried to make workers wealthy like you said, they would be operating at a loss. In that case, you need to have negative customers to be profitable.

wait, so either they're making their workers wealthy, or they're gutting their workers into the streets?

only if they know he's there.

if everyone can only vote on known issues or known creators, then thats great...for the issues and creators they already know about.

Find the store by walking around, seeing ads, finding their website. Same as usual.

yyyyyeah, here, you probably have an advantage over me: I don't live within easy walking distance of a bunch of grocery stores and other places that I would need to compare products and prices.

its $1.50 US dollars per jicama, because of how big they are

At the very least, a bus ride to a store which carries them, costing time and money. Also, in India, $1.50 is 3 full sized meals. For Indians, buying one avocado is a huge expenditure.

my apologies for providing an actual example of what I was talking about; but now I'm worried that you're mad I'm richer than you because I have two dollars USD.
*sigh*

I have a patreon too - and for five years, I've only had one subscriber.

I would like to support many more creators than I do, but I don't because I can't afford it. We would have more to spend if rich assholes didn't keep stowing it all away.

I'm pretty sure the US Mint doesn't factor in "hm, how much American Money did these millionaires put in state/national/foreign banks?" when they go to print more money...I don't know if India's Mint does, I grant you that.

[Raphael]

I would say though that that is still an example of false consciousness, though, because at the end of the day their lot is with the other workers and not with the bourgeoisie. They still need to sell their labor in order to survive and are liable to be let go at a moment's notice regardless of their investments.

"False consciousness" is a way of trying to explain away inconsistencies between observed fact and some aspects of some forms of left-wing theory.

"I've come up with a theory of bird nutrition. It says that no birds ever eat worms if they can help it!"
"A lot of the smaller bird species eat worms all the time."
"Yes, those birds clearly have false consciousness."

[Raphael]

keenir, I don't think rotting bones is proposing that we should all vote on what everyone has to eat.

I would like to support many more creators than I do, but I don't because I can't afford it. We would have more to spend if rich assholes didn't keep stowing it all away.

I'm pretty sure the US Mint doesn't factor in "hm, how much American Money did these millionaires put in state/national/foreign banks?" when they go to print more money...I don't know if India's Mint does, I grant you that.

I don't think you're getting rotting bones's point. It's not about the amount of money in the world (which is created by central banks, not mints, by the way), but about how much money each part of the population has.

[Ares Land]

As a talking point, "infinite growth" falls entirely flat - when growth ends or substantially slows, which has been predicted as many times as the end of the world and is about as inevitable, there will be no routes for the ambitious, for those who want to better their lot in life, that aren't zero-sum. Degrowth is a flawed idea not only because growth is a necessary input to the military power to resist foreign conquest but also because, if everyone agreed to do it, the only way to get ahead in life (which people who grew up with reliably potable tap water and three fresh meals a day take as reflecting poor character, because they are fools) would be through violence.

Getting back to this because it's very relevant.
In developed countries growth did slow down significantly, which is normal and a simple product of diminishing returns. So the economy is not entirely a zero-sum game, but um, a lot more of a zero-sum game than it used to be. Or in other words, we're slowing getting back a rentier economy.
If you want to get ahead in life, you sure won't get there by doing anything vulgar, like work.

The sad thing is, and again I'm talking about developed countries -- you shouldn't have to 'get ahead'. Any developed country as more than enough productive capacity to house and feed all of its in comfort, and with everyone working reasonable hours. Any scarcity that is still felt at present GDPs is completely artificial.

As an aside, growth is always necessary to avoid military conquest? God, I hope not, or nuclear winter will force degrowth on all of us!

[Travis B.]

I would say though that that is still an example of false consciousness, though, because at the end of the day their lot is with the other workers and not with the bourgeoisie. They still need to sell their labor in order to survive and are liable to be let go at a moment's notice regardless of their investments.

"False consciousness" is a way of trying to explain away inconsistencies between observed fact and some aspects of some forms of left-wing theory.

"I've come up with a theory of bird nutrition. It says that no birds ever eat worms if they can help it!"
"A lot of the smaller bird species eat worms all the time."
"Yes, those birds clearly have false consciousness."

False consciousness is the difference between one's self-interest and what one has been led to believe is one's self-interest.

A big part of modern capitalist society is workers being deceived by the bourgeoisie and their propagandists as to what their self-interest is. Capitalism needs this in order to survive, as without it there would probably be a revolution tomorrow.

A good example of false consciousness is blaming immigrants for a lack of jobs rather than the capitalists who eliminate/export such jobs. In this case it is the bourgeoisie who perpetuate a lie, using immigrants as a scapegoat, to distract workers from the reality of the matter.

[Raphael]

False consciousness is the difference between one's self-interest and what one has been led to believe is one's self-interest.

A big part of modern capitalist society is workers being deceived by the bourgeoisie and their propagandists as to what their self-interest is. Capitalism needs this in order to survive, as without it there would probably be a revolution tomorrow.

You're assuming that people mainly care about their self-interest. How do you get that idea? Repeating myself, for many people, their main motivations are things like pride, self-esteem, or being respected by the people around them.

[Ares Land]

My views are perhaps not orthodox left-wing, but civilization depends on people looking beyond their self-interest. Or else, well, why shouldn't they go for fascism after all?

[Raphael]

My views are perhaps not orthodox left-wing, but civilization depends on people looking beyond their self-interest. Or else, well, why shouldn't they go for fascism after all?

I'd say except for parts of the upper crust, support for fascism is more a matter of pride and the desire for a high social status, and maybe meaning, than a matter of self-interest.