« prev   random   next »

2
1

Great News for the Future

By CornPoptheOriginalGangster follow CornPoptheOriginalGangster   2019 Sep 1, 1:27am 683 views   49 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    




Considering the very oldest Zoomer just graduated college, that the largest Milennial cohort by age is about 29, and the non-stop Socialist/SJW propaganda aimed at kids these days, this is really good news.

It's great when kids rebel against Socialist authorities in Education.

Oh, and I've been nattering on about who has kids? Studies - if you can believe them - have Gen Z going to Church more often than either Milennials or Gen X.

Naturally - leftists have fewer kids.

« First    « Previous    Comments 10 - 49 of 49    Last »

10   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 1, 4:44pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

The stunning thing is that Milennials are where they are relative to their age.
11   Dholliday126   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 1, 6:22pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

The elites got it covered, they're just importing all the socialists.
12   Fortwaynemobile   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 1, 6:53pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Lgbt and pedophilia go hand in hand.

Lots of old faggots in Los Angeles chasing little boys. Sick fucks.

Quigley says
There are not many ideas that are more harmful to society than the ones the LBGTQ crowd pushes. Even feminism isn’t as bad as trans activism or gay proselytizing. Off the top of my head, the only worse ideas are normalizing pedophilia and Satanism.
15   HeadSet   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 2, 6:20pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

I guess "Women's Studies" does not include the biological aspect, like in how women get pregnant. Nor include social aspects, like how it takes two to make a kid, and the other partner should bear some responsibility for the child's financial issues
16   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 3, 3:43pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

With a degree in women studies, maybe he understands women...

Just trying to be charitable.
17   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 3, 3:46pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

I'm starting to wonder if that is a Man, or just a very high T woman.
18   Fortwaynemobile   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 3, 3:48pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Doubt it.

He’d know women don’t date broke asses.

Heraclitusstudent says
With a degree in women studies, maybe he understands women...

Just trying to be charitable.
19   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 3, 3:52pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

You finish reading that book, then your T collapses to women's level.
20   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 3, 4:02pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

But, this being said, the younger generations are absolutely correct: socialism is the future of the world.
Too many useless people can't be dealt with unless massive redistribution takes place.
And this will become worse as productivity increases.
Bread and circus until barbarians show up.
Every moral instinct that says the contrary will have to be renegotiated.
21   Automan Empire   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 3, 4:08pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Some day I'd like to see a graph of how each cohort stands on socialism vs capitalism... all when they were age ~22.

How was America being destroyed through corruption of its youth over time?

10 years ago it was Obama's brand of Alinsky socialism
20 years ago it was peacenik muslim lovers
30 years ago it was heavy metal and satanic cults
40 years ago it was the actual Russians
50 years ago it was rock and roll and long hair
60 years ago it was communist artists and Mad Magazine

Sure looks absurd pver time when you're not responsive to their talking points.
22   mell   ignore (3)   2019 Sep 3, 4:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
But, this being said, the younger generations are absolutely correct: socialism is the future of the world.
Too many useless people can't be dealt with unless massive redistribution takes place.
And this will become worse as productivity increases.
Bread and circus until barbarians show up.
Every moral instinct that says the contrary will have to be renegotiated.


I doubt they will hold onto this. Gen Z is already starting to turn away from the Millenial shriek socialist peak. They are and will keep realizing that there's no money in socialism and everyone will be worse off. And they will take a look at their parents and older siblings and realize how unhappy they are living on cultural-marxist leftoid beliefs and without any cohesive family unit, constantly high on SSRIs. The move back to traditionalism has already started in Eastern Europe and will eventually sweep the West if they can't ramp up the Alinsky agitprop machines. Countries will move away from socialism even if there is greater temporary bloodletting.
23   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 3, 4:29pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

mell says
They are and will keep realizing that there's no money in socialism and everyone will be worse off.


You don't understand. This is not a choice. Capitalism is circling the drain. It can't work if more and more people are useless.
Negative yields.
We have poor people, but we could literally produce everything they need and more. But we won't because they are useless and will be more and more useless as time goes by. Until socialism takes over.

There is no solution within the bounds of capitalism. If not the Chinese, the robots will take over. And no one can claim they worked hard to produce what robots did. Then you give it to people for free. And that's that.
25   mell   ignore (3)   2019 Sep 3, 4:48pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
mell says
They are and will keep realizing that there's no money in socialism and everyone will be worse off.


You don't understand. This is not a choice. Capitalism is circling the drain. It can't work if more and more people are useless.
Negative yields.
We have poor people, but we could literally produce everything they need and more. But we won't because they are useless and will be more and more useless as time goes by. Until socialism takes over.

There is no solution within the bounds of capitalism. If not the Chinese, the robots will take over. And no one can claim they worked hard to produce what robots did. Then you give it to people for free. And that's that.


The useful people will eventually abandon the useless, there is a choice. Birthrates have been going down in most countries that matter, the problem is that the useless procreate while the useful don't procreate enough. As long as technological innovation will keep upping productivity and making goods cheaper this can continue, otherwise there will be a stop to the useless infiltrating the useful. You can see it by many countries locking their borders, more will follow. There is a choice and an army will enforce eventually. Of course if your society rots form the inside you may become such a useless country or society yourself, there are no guarantees.
26   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 3, 5:13pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

mell says
The useful people will eventually abandon the useless, there is a choice.


You're talking like useless people are a fringe. They will be the majority and be in the street asking for food.

You reason like if given a low enough wage and sufficient effort people could still be useful. This is still true now, but less and less true everyday.
Capitalism is failing to provide the basics for the population at large because a fraction of the population, given the right tools, CAN do everything that needs to be done. The rest is free to starve.
27   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 3, 5:55pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

#1 Manufacturing has been removed from the consuming areas. This creates unemployment, though Western Countries and esp. the US have done an amazing job despite this. China's GDP is 20% exports, and they keep domestic consumption low. They also have token enforcement of token labor and enviro laws, subsidize the hell out of their exports, and artificially depreciate their currency. Changing any of these items would create countless hundreds of millions of jobs.

#2 Robots/AI are not coming anytime soon. Robots and Androids do not work on magic happy sauce, but electricity. Electric currently does not come from micro fusion power like in Buck Rodgers. Androids picking lettuce in California is both impossible, and were it possible, it would be economically infeasible over Mexicans. Again, no Robot has ever taught itself to open a simple latch door that a 1 year old figures out in seconds. Slapping a camera on a robot does not let it "See". Even programming (not learning by itself) an electronic device to "See" different intensity of light and navigate towards/around it is expensive and processor intensive.

Autonomous Machines are so damn expensive, incompetent, and unreliable we don't even use them to explore Mars. Scientists prefer to micromanage them on a 10-15 minute delay from Earth. Even NASA can't build a simple rover that recognizes geo formations and/or avoids rocks with a probe budget that averages a Billion+ for each one.

#3 We ARE on the verge of a space revolution giving humanity virtually unlimited resources in the Solar System which could support 100s of Billions of Humans no problem, NOT including the Oort Cloud or Fusion Power availability. Energy from the Sun is easily collected with paper thin common element alloys and directed via microwave. This is despite atrocious under investment of human and physical capital in exploiting this virtually unlimited resource.

#3b. There is also abundant thorium - extremely common in the Crust - which is already produced by the countless tons as a byproduct of making little batteries for electronic devices. Instead of using it, we're paying to dump it.

#4. We must halt all immigration and foreign health aid to Africa and poor countries like Laos. We must consider putting birth control in 3rd world country's water supplies and reducing births while feminizing their populations.

#5. The future is going to be utterly decentralized. There are going to be 1000s of "microstates" or "City states" with a few thousand people from Ganymede to the Asteroid Belt. There will be no mechanism of enforcing centralized rule, either from a National Government or an UN Government, beyond a few generations. Throw a pebble from a 1/10th Earth Gravity Moon at a ship doing a Hohmann transfer and KaBoom! goes 100 Space Marines.

#5b. We're going to see a "Reversal" in specialization and more "Jack of All Trades" in the next two centuries.

Maltheus is quite exploded.
28   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 3, 6:33pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
#1 Manufacturing has been removed from the consuming areas.


Wherever it is done, a fraction of the population can do it for the entire population.

HonkpilledMaster says
#2 Robots/AI are not coming anytime soon.

Whatever the case, more and more stuff is automated.

HonkpilledMaster says
Androids picking lettuce in California is both impossible

Agriculture is already done to a tiny percent of the population, and it's about to get worse as robots will soon run entire farms from A to Z. If not lettuce then wheat.
The farmer will be down to helping in rare situations when something breaks down.

Agriculture and manufacturing are disappearing as jobs. Down to a few percents of the population.
So the rest of the population is made to compete for dummy positions in the service industries. Soon retails clerks and truck drivers will disappear. 2 other staples of the economy employing millions of the less educated. More and more people are useless. Fact.

HonkpilledMaster says
We ARE on the verge of a space revolution giving humanity virtually unlimited resources


Right now we can't even go to the moon. We can't have a small group living there.
In the best case it will take decades. Things progress slowly. This is not easy.

HonkpilledMaster says
#5. The future is going to be utterly decentralized.


This is what it would take: a giant step back from the current world which is optimized for efficiency, and deliberately duplicating efforts and focusing on non-efficient but higher quality solutions.

Exactly what cannot happen under capitalism, at least without massive state interference.
29   Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 3, 10:13pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Capitalism is failing to provide the basics for the population at large because a fraction of the population, given the right tools, CAN do everything that needs to be done. The rest is free to starve.


I'm afraid you are forgetting that "Those who do not work shall not eat!" was a quote from Trotsky and/or Lenin. The reason for such a policy was because the socialist state was wasting tons of resources on bureaucratic mismanagement and waging wars on every neighbor and every member within, so they had little resources left over to feed people.

Heraclitusstudent says
Agriculture is already done to a tiny percent of the population, and it's about to get worse as robots will soon run entire farms from A to Z. If not lettuce then wheat.
The farmer will be down to helping in rare situations when something breaks down.


So what has resulted from such a drastic increase in farming productivity? In our market economy, the result is an abundance of food: even the poor are having so much food so cheaply that their primary problem is obesity! The exact opposite of starvation.

OTOH, the central planning economies mismanaged by well-educated bureaucrats are always known for creating starvation: Venezuela now, Soviet Union and China in the mid-20th century, and possibly China again soon! In the US, starvation only took place when FDR's "brain trust" central planners burned crops and farm animals while dumped milk into the ocean in their effort to raise prices artificially!

If/when food becomes so cheap that it is entirely produced automatically therefore costing next to nothing, then the poor would no more starve than they would suffocate out in the open due to lack of oxygen, which is free!

The real reason for under-employment among certain segments of the population is not either international trade or automation, but government regulations preventing certain jobs from taking place and welfare removing the incentive to work. For example, minimum wage laws ban low productivity workers (including starting workers; i.e. youths) from getting legal jobs . . . so they take jobs from the illegal drug industry. There are of course good reasons to avoid trading with countries that are run by totalitarian governments: lest they become dominant in the world and enslave us all; it's a security concern, not an economic concern per se.
30   mell   ignore (3)   2019 Sep 3, 10:38pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
mell says
The useful people will eventually abandon the useless, there is a choice.


You're talking like useless people are a fringe. They will be the majority and be in the street asking for food.

You reason like if given a low enough wage and sufficient effort people could still be useful. This is still true now, but less and less true everyday.
Capitalism is failing to provide the basics for the population at large because a fraction of the population, given the right tools, CAN do everything that needs to be done. The rest is free to starve.


There are plenty of service jobs that need humans. Also minus women and immigrants we have an overabundance of jobs. Let mostly female consumerism go in favor of the nuclear family and one earner will be enough again.
31   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 3, 11:09pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
The farmer will be down to helping in rare situations when something breaks down.


This is an argument against your position. Agriculture employed over 90% of humanity until about a century or so ago. In the 1930s, one in 5 Americans was still involved in Direct Agricultural Employment. By the 1970s it was less than 4%. And yet, consumer capitalism absorbed 80%+ of humanity formerly employed in Agra, despite the huge boom in population, into formal wage employment.

Predictions of technology eliminated employment go back to the 18th Century and the quasi-apocryphal Luddites who may or may not have actually been extant. I recall concerns about mass employment going back to the Greco-Roman era.

Heraclitusstudent says
Right now we can't even go to the moon. We can't have a small group living there.


We went to the moon with telemetry, much less digital technology. Not once but several times. More and more countries have landed probes on the moon, which are a fraction of the cost of the early moon probes yet for more capable, such as Vikram and Yutu-2, which were launched by developing countries who couldn't have dreamed of having the finances or tech to do just a couple of decades ago.

America is already going to Moon again, has two ongoing operations to orbit with people before 2024, will have an orbiting moon station very shortly, and will be landing - this time on the poles - in the next few years.

This year alone, 3 countries with separate vehicles are futzing around on the moon - India, China, and Israel. A private company (SpaceX) was responsible for most of the travel of the latter and will be sending humans around the moon again.

I admire Elon Musk - I suspect Reality does as well - for annoying NASA and especially ESA - by developing private rockets and spacecraft and doing it far better, faster, and cheaper than contractors wholly on the government Cost-Plus teat.

All of this is being done at a fraction of the cost of the Apollo Program which cost I believe 3% of US GDP each year in the 1960s. The US Artemis Program, if fully funded, is advertised at $30-$50B but will probably end up being $200B. That's a 5% of one year of a Federal Budget and a fraction of 1% of US GDP.

Point being, building an orbital station and returning to the moon with all-new equipment after 50 years is relatively dirt cheap, proving advancement and feasibility.

By this time next decade, we'll have hourly trips to the far side of the Earth, breaking the record of any Concord, as well as the ability to transfer multiple Apollo-mission weight payloads to the Moon and Beyond with the BFR. We'll very quickly be able to turn all that lovely Alumina, Silica, Titanium, Iron Oxides, and very likely water Ice on the Moon into facilities and products, especially once we get over the nuclear power prejudice. Did you know you can make low Isp propellant out of Alumina? Not very useful for leaving Earth but good enough when you're well on your way out of the Deepest Gravity Well in the Inner Solar System for points beyond.

When John Cabot landed in North America, around Newfoundland, it was 1497. It took about 110 years for the first colony to be founded at Quebec City. In between scores of other expeditions only scratched the coast lines of North America. We are about 50 years from Apollo and the Ranger/Luna missions, and yet we're already on the verge of establishing an outpost in orbit, followed almost certainly by a permanently-staffed surface outpost before I collect Social Security.

The turning point is as soon as we manufacture any kind of propellant and food on the moon, albeit partial resupply. From that moment, our exploration of the Solar System and eventually colonization is guaranteed.
32   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 3, 11:41pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
This is what it would take: a giant step back from the current world which is optimized for efficiency, and deliberately duplicating efforts and focusing on non-efficient but higher quality solutions.


That's "Multiple Human locations beyond the Earth, massively increasing the likelihood of species survival", then space travel is the best bet for the money.

For a $100B/year we could have multiple moon colonies that would be largely self-sufficient in about a decade. In several decades, with the same real spending, multiple colonies beyond Earth's Gravity Well.

Whereas terrestrial Wind and Solar power isn't expected to show much improvement, and physically simply could not solve the energy problem.

For almost two decades, Germany spent about $40B per year, most of the costs borne by ordinary Germans with Heavy Industry totally exempted via electric bills, on Energiewende. Total cost would be about $700B by 2022. What did they get? A fractional increase in renewable power generation, but moot when you consider they import more electric from coal heavy Poland and nuclear heavy France when the sun isn't shining and the wind speed is low (sometimes weeks at a time).

If they spent $700B exploiting the infinite resources of Space, they would probably have orbiting microwaved solar power, including a complete space launch infrastructure from scratch. Or a lunar base.
33   Quigley   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 4, 4:56am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
we won't because they are useless and will be more and more useless as time goes by. Until socialism takes over.


How will socialism make them less useless?
So far, all history has shown is that excess socialism leads to a sick culture and horrifying crime rates. Useless people tend to rebel against society, causing problems for everyone. The solution is not to make them more useless, but more useFUL. That will take creativity and thoughtfulness, as well as buttloads of education. We should also cease incentivizing the very stupid people from making more of themselves. It’s going to be hard enough to find something for the ones we have to do, let alone if they reproduce and become the majority.
34   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 4, 6:09pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
Predictions of technology eliminated employment go back to the 18th Century and the quasi-apocryphal Luddites who may or may not have actually been extant. I recall concerns about mass employment going back to the Greco-Roman era.

If we don't have an employment and income problem why do we need to go in debt every year, just to keep the economy growing slightly. The gov is about $1 trillion in the red, but the economy barely churns.
It can't be the Chinese or the Mexicans, otherwise why isn't their consumption generating enough income and thus enough consumption so things align?

Why are interest rates negative in so many places?
Why are wages barely growing when we have 3% unemployment?

The money simply isn't distributed, isn't circulating, isn't spent, isn't generating enough end demand. Why is that?
35   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 4, 6:11pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
How will socialism make them less useless?

It won't.

Quigley says
Useless people tend to rebel against society

No they won't.

I'm not talking of Lenin's kind of socialism - where people have to work.
I'm talking of the 'social net' kind: pay people to do nothing. Give them food. We already are. It will just get worse.
Useless people do rebel unless they're fed and entertained doing nothing.
When they are, that's socialism.
36   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 Sep 4, 6:31pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Useless people do rebel unless they're fed and entertained doing nothing.
When they are, that's socialism.


Bread and Circuses Food stamps and cable, cheap imported labor, debasement of currency, a decadent ruling class; like the Romans before us the barbarians are just waiting at the gate for one or two more generations when we will be weak enough to conquer.
37   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 4, 7:07pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
It can't be the Chinese or the Mexicans, otherwise why isn't their consumption generating enough income and thus enough consumption so things align?


China keeps it's currency artifically cheap, retarding the buying power of Chinese consumers, which should be growing with China's expanding economy.

Heraclitusstudent says
Why are wages barely growing when we have 3% unemployment?


Illegal Immigration and too many H1Bs. If we have such an employment crisis, why is allowing millions of under-the-table workers (who aren't counted in stats) and 100k's of H1Bs (mostly in tech), necessary?

Special Programs allowing $35k/year H1Bs over free market $50k/yr native Tech Guys has a Yuge impact on wage growth. As does an endless supply of illegal construction laborers vs. native laborers.
38   Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 4, 7:51pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
If we don't have an employment and income problem why do we need to go in debt every year,


Debt is a fundamental aspect of our monetary system (under central banking): your income/savings come from someone else' debt. Money is borrowed into existence in our current credit-based monetary system

just to keep the economy growing slightly. The gov is about $1 trillion in the red, but the economy barely churns.


That's because the biggest borrower is the government, which creates negative value. Private borrowers have to generate higher profit/productivity than they borrow, or they would be eliminated from the market place through bankruptcy . . . whereas the government can continuously destroy value and destroy capital for decades because it is a monopoly.

It can't be the Chinese or the Mexicans, otherwise why isn't their consumption generating enough income and thus enough consumption so things align?


Because Chinese elite and Mexican elite find it more secure to invest their capital in the US, so in order to for them to export capital to the US they have to run a current account surplus . . . therefore they have to whip their slaves into producing more than they consume in order to generage a current account surplus in order for their elite to export capital into the US, where capital ownership is more secure than in their native countries.

Why are interest rates negative in so many places?


A reflection of government borrowing generating negative return.



Why are wages barely growing when we have 3% unemployment?


Because the unskilled labor (and increasingly skilled labor) was being replaced foreigners . . . and because government borrowing generates negative return therefore destroys capital . . . less capital means lower productivity. The regulatory cost, such mandatory medical insurance, also depress the cash wage.

The money simply isn't distributed, isn't circulating, isn't spent, isn't generating enough end demand. Why is that?


Redistributing money from those who can generate positive return on capital to those who would consume capital for little to no return would only result in even lower standards of living as capital is destroyed. Capital is that which enable people to generate higher return on labor than scratching a living out of the land with bare hands. Increasing nominal end demand without having productivity increase out-pacing such demand increase would only result in price inflation and lower standards of living; i.e. lower inflation-adjusted income. That's precisely what's been happening since LBJ's "Great Society" program and "War on Poverty."
39   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 4, 11:13pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
China keeps it's currency artifically cheap, retarding the buying power of Chinese consumers
HonkpilledMaster says
Illegal Immigration and too many H1Bs.


Right. But again they do it. They don't get the income to consume. And still, Americans don't need to do it. There is less work and less income from that work.

HonkpilledMaster says
If we have such an employment crisis, why is allowing millions of under-the-table workers (who aren't counted in stats)


What I'm saying is there is not enough jobs for both Americans, under-the-table workers, and Chinese. You may say this worker should get the job rather than that one, but this is not the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is there isn't enough for everyone. Those who do have the jobs are productive enough for everyone.

Granted we have 3% unemployment, but after so many people fell off the labor force. And a majority of those who work are locked in a race to the bottom.

The result is not enough income, and the need for debt. And some transfers to the poor as a way to compensate.
More of that is necessarily coming, as we are still moving in the same direction.
40   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 4, 11:19pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
That's "Multiple Human locations beyond the Earth, massively increasing the likelihood of species survival", then space travel is the best bet for the money.


Or we could pay artists, or mothers of newborns, or artisans producing high quality products but can't make a living out of it, or farmers producing organic vegetables, or invest massively in solar/wind, or rebuilt new infrastructures, or basic healthcare coverage for all, etc...
Being more inefficient is easy and sometime good on a human level.
But the incentives won't be provided by the markets.
41   Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 4, 11:27pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Or we could pay artists, or mothers of newborns, or artisans producing high quality products but can't make a living out of it, or farmers producing organic vegetables, or invest massively in solar/wind, or rebuilt new infrastructures, or basic healthcare coverage for all, etc...
Being more inefficient is easy and sometime good on a human level.
But the incentives won't be provided by the markets.


I'm sorry, I don't find robbing other people to be an art, or an artisan high quality art. Encouraging young women to mate with men who would not be able to support the new-born would be even worse: literally encouraging multi-generational poverty and multi-generational criminality.

What makes you think solar/wind is superior to "reuilt new infrastructure" or to "basic healthcare coverage for all"? Make up your mind which is more important. Money (and positive return on capital) is the tool to help society sort out priorities and what constitute achievable goals, as opposed to pie-in-the-sky dreams that condemn people to poverty (usually on the command of the totalitarian ruler; the primary function of money in society is as a check against such totalitarian rule by political power). The road to hell is usually paved with (allegedly) good intentions.
42   Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 4, 11:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
The result is not enough income, and the need for debt. And some transfers to the poor as a way to compensate.
More of that is necessarily coming, as we are still moving in the same direction.


Not all debt is for consumption. In fact, most debts are supposed to be for investment . . . "supposed" because when government borrow to "invest" it usually ends up as consumption/malinvestment instead of investment.

The only good debt is borrow to invest . . . with achievable expectations that exceed the interest on the debt.

That's what our monetary system is based on.

If your only understanding of debt is borrowing for consumption (i.e. not productive debt, or even break-even roll-over debt, but consumption with no hope of paying back type of borrowing), then you are screwed.
43   Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 4, 11:41pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
What I'm saying is there is not enough jobs for both Americans, under-the-table workers, and Chinese. You may say this worker should get the job rather than that one, but this is not the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is there isn't enough for everyone. Those who do have the jobs are productive enough for everyone.


May want to look up the concept in economics called "Comparative Advantage." If you are a lawyer and you can type 30 words per minute or earn $200/hr when not typing, and if the assistant can only type 20 words per minute or earning $20/hr when not typing . . . you'd be better of hiring her to type for you even if you type faster than she does . . . simply because you can earn even more money when hiring her to do the typing for you.
44   Expat   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 5, 2:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Fricking Democrats. Here are a few choice paraphrases:

-We must speak up and defend the rights of the poor and the needy.

-If you want to be part of us, you should share your wealth with the poor. If you don't, you are not a good person.

-I prefer honest, poor men to rich corrupt men. Good people care about the poor and needy; if you don't care, you are a terrible person.

-Even in our country there will unfortunately always be poor people. It is the duty of the wealthy to help them. Even simple things like clothes and food; rich people should share these with poor people.

The politicians who said these things are obviously commies and their opinions show they should be driven from office and kicked out of America.
45   HeadSet   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 5, 12:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If you want to be part of us, you should share your wealth with the poor. If you don't, you are not a good person.

Do not see too any rich Dems giving much of their own money to the poor. Imagine the Clinton's and other rich Dems deciding to live on say. $200k per year while donating the rest. Guess they are not good people.
46   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 5, 12:39pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says
Not all debt is for consumption. In fact, most debts are supposed to be for investment . . .

Investments mean... buying stuff right? As in: money spent on people doing work, who then turn around and spend that money on other things.
Apparently there is not enough of that going on that the gov feels the need to do it itself. Massive quantities of it.
Why? Isn't the money going in a circle? If not where is the money getting stuck, not being spent?

Reality says
I'm sorry, I don't find robbing other people to be an art

You just need to read your credit card fine prints, or medical payments fine prints, or any such lawyer talk applied to doing business with people not as smart as they think they are. That ought to convince a reasonable man that robbing people is indeed an art.

I get that most Americans will prefer to continue in the current downward spiral and feel indignant that we dare to pay people for doing nothing, or spend money on otherwise uneconomical endeavor. Capitalism is doing a great job of destroying itself.
47   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 5, 12:46pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
or invest massively in solar/wind,


This is a waste of money. Even if efficiency improved 100%, it could never replace the current need for electric generation.

Putting birth control in the wells and aqueducts of 3rd world countries would produce far better results at a cheaper cost, as would mandatory sterilization of hoodrats after the 2nd child.
48   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 5, 12:47pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Expat says
The politicians who said these things are obviously commies and their opinions show they should be driven from office and kicked out of America.


Or maybe they should run off and become priests, rabbis or imams preaching their religious values instead of becoming politicians?

Conservatives are already more generous than Liberals when it comes to donating time and money to various charities. So we are not interested in raising our taxes to make up for cheap-skate and greedy Liberals who don't volunteer their time and money.

Government should provide a very basic safety net. Just enough money to keep you off the street, but not enough to be comfortable.

Private institutions like charities and religious organizations should provide the rest.
49   Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 5, 8:46pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Investments mean... buying stuff right? As in: money spent on people doing work, who then turn around and spend that money on other things.
Apparently there is not enough of that going on that the gov feels the need to do it itself. Massive quantities of it.
Why? Isn't the money going in a circle? If not where is the money getting stuck, not being spent?


In a genuine market economy, someone investing in machinery or a factory can realistically expect products turned out by the machinery and factory down the road can more than service the debt and interest . . . i.e. the goods turned out by the machinery and factory down the road can hold down the price inflationary effect of new money created by that time to service the debt payment. In the Keynesian model ignoring the medium to long term inflationary effect of fiat money injection (it takes time for money to propagate through the economy to raise price levels, a delay effect that makes Keynesian scam appear workable on paper), government printing of money to spend on projects that do not generate positive return would result in no new increased products to offset the new money, so despite the nominal increase in money the total purchasing power is lower after adjusting for inflation simply because goods/services are less available after the mal-investments / capital-consumptions.

Heraclitusstudent says
You just need to read your credit card fine prints, or medical payments fine prints, or any such lawyer talk applied to doing business with people not as smart as they think they are. That ought to convince a reasonable man that robbing people is indeed an art.


Notice, those licensed monopolies / oligopolies are created by government regulations. I agree with you that they are robbing people. Doesn't mean however creating more robbery schemes would somehow magically make the situation better. The real productive members of the society would be even more disincentivized to work if we add more robbers into the mix.

« First    « Previous    Comments 10 - 49 of 49    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions