Heraclitusstudent's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 6079 - 6118 of 6,118     Last »

  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 11:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

HeadSet says
Before capitalism, people could not come up with food on hand. Every day was hunt and gather or starve.

Yes, I like capitalism. Capitalism created enormous wealth. I'm not forgetting that.
I just see that the objective function is getting rogue and away from humanity.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 11:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Strategist says
If anyone thinks San Francisco homes will now be affordable to most people in the next 5 years are in for a shock. One hell of a shock. Why? Because even more people with money will buy up the new stock.

Yes, but this is just a function of how much is built. They are not going to build enough because there are too many obstacles.
Let's say we:
- change the building code to allow 6 stories building all over the Bay Area with minimum permits.
- open all free space (hills) north of 92 for development.
- Fill-in the bay between Hunter Point and Brisbane to develop a new town the size of Foster City.
- Fill-in the bay south of Dumbarton
- Build Bart to SJ. Add 2 lanes to 101 & 280. Add a bridge 280 to Alameda. Make 19th Avenue an express way between 280 and Golden Gate. Build a tunnel between 280 and Half Moon Bay. Build a tunnel 280 to La Honda. Open La Honda and San Gregorio to development.

I bet you could add 500,000 units and the rich would panic and sell.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 2:47pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

jazz_music says
Why can't Capitalism thrive under a system of slavery and tyranny? Does anyone see Capitalism weakening in any way at all?

There already seems to be clear delineators that separate shareholders from suffering the fates of those dependent on wages, many of whom are living like refugees.

Clearly because:
1 - people need to eat, otherwise they are going to rebel. If they become useless, they will require welfare. There is no way around it.
2 - the current trend, with AI, threaten people who so far were profiting. When we start automating financial and management functions, the end of capitalism will follow quickly.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 2:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PeopleUnited says
I want to agree with you but capitalism doesn't create wealth.
PeopleUnited says
They can be motivated to work by various mean such as the profit motive in the United States or the threat of violence/starvation as in North Korea but in either circumstance both systems are generating wealth.

Except clearly people are better motivated by positive incentives, which is the strong point of capitalism. Which is why North Korea is poor and starving and the US is relatively rich.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 2:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Quigley says
You can consider the absolutely INCREDIBLE advances humanity as a WHOLE has experienced, how an average worker in middle class America has more choices for luxury and medicine than Louis XIV, and you can conclude that human work has moved HUMANITY forward! Sure, the elites maintain an edge over the average man, and they still call the shots for the most part. But the improvements our combined work has wrought upon the land are enjoyed by all of us!

Except the trend is that more and more people become useless and are consequently cast in utter poverty.

It's not like these people couldn't work and produce wealth. It is that mere humans can't do it efficiently enough to be competitive with robots.

And it's not like an automatized economy couldn't produce luxury goods for all people based on the resources and energy available. It is that capitalism itself doesn't give any incentives to do so, considering these people have nothing to offer in exchange. This is where the incentives of capitalism break down.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 2:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Capitalism is built on debt & fiat currency.
Global debt $233 trillion, better start printing.

And this debt explosion is necessary just so we can maintain the status quo.
Without monetary management, capitalism would already be dead.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 3:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Reality says
The idea that socialism would take better care of the "weaker" and more retarded is proven false everywhere it's been tried.

I'm not saying socialism is better. I don't think it is. You are completely missing the point. I'm saying capitalism is dying.

Reality says
Homo Sapiens would not have emerged if not for the earlier and more primitive life forms and species having died off all along the direct path leading to humanity!

Evolution works, but a society is not a Darwinian experiment. Poor people do not die. If starving they eventually rise up and kill rich people.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 3:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Reality says
Capitalistic free market place is about giving every individual the right to choose, by using his/her own money.

That worked when most people could play a useful role in a society. This doesn't work when poor people have no useful skills to offer, don't have land to produce food, don't have land to build a shelter, and basically are left out with time stamps, and pooping between cars on the street.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 4:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Reality says
Society is of course Darwinian. Evolution is always taking place for not only the genetic human organism but also human ideas ("memic evolution").

Evolution of human ideas has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Poor people now reproduce at a much faster rate than rich people.
Thus society is by definition not Darwinian evolution.

And when upheaval happens, more poor people may die but not in the same proportion as rich people. The French or Russian revolution decimated the aristocracy. To say that Robespierre or Lenin were not poor is missing the point. Of course they were smart enough to elevate themselves, but they were not aristocrats, nor rich.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 4:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Reality says
Every episode of capitalism in human history (e.g. Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Hrappans) eventually died because the children growing up under prosperity went to school and learned socialism/communism (e.g. Plato) and tried to become "social engineers" and worshipers of authority (as students being appraised by professors) instead of staying in the habit of a free market place and appreciate the difference between individuals and the invisible hand that bring forth both prosperity and innovation.

Ok, let's not try to engineer anything. Let us let capitalism die and collapse from its own weight in the process I described.
Like I care.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 13, 5:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Reality says
If / when you get caught up in that process, chances are very high that you will die in that baptism of fire. The population of Ancient Rome collapsed by 90% in a few decades.

So either we let capitalism die by itself and civilization collapses, or we manage it and socialism destroys civilization.
Sounds like we're fucked either way.

Don't worry, the power-that-be will put everyone on welfare, and keep for themselves the opulent fruits technocracy.
But of course Reality will still be preaching capitalism long after capitalists around the world have fled it and it has ceased to exist.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 14, 2:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MisterLefty says
Something wrong with picking fruit?

Are you suggesting the 95 millions people not in labor force pick fruits?
Fruits are being picked right now with the labor force we have, correct?

I don't think people here are really trying to understand the problem.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 14, 2:32pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
In general, there are plenty of good jobs all the time, it's just that those jobs require those IQ points and some years of dedicated study. As tech gets better, the prospects for those who cannot or will not dedicate themselves to learning keep getting worse. But the prospects for those who can learn tech deeply keep getting better.

If everyone had an IQ of 120, jobs in tech would require an IQ of 150.
As it stands, there are already tons of useless or overly speculative things done in tech.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 14, 2:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Reality says
This phenomenon really proves that "unemployable" in most cases is actually the result of minimum wage laws / welfare rules.

If it wasn't for minimum wages laws, wages would fall to $2/h. As a result the end demand would collapse further, and even more debt would be required. Why do you never consider the effect of low wages on spending when half the population already can't come up with 400 fucking dollars?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 16, 12:03pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Since people activities are the source of the pollution tons per capita would sound like a fair comparison of effort people are doing.

But I suspect Americans pollute more than most to start with, so they have low hanging fruits when it's time to cut back.

Maybe better measure how much tons per capita actually remains.

Still nice to see an effort.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 16, 12:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

What about "conscientiousness"? Also a big factor in success, and one that stands a better chance being taught.

From Wikipedia:
"Conscientious individuals are generally hard-working and reliable. They are also likely to be conformists.[2] When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics", perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior.[3] People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success; they also are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior.[4]"
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 16, 12:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Quigley says
I disagree that there’s nothing for low IQ people to do. Even the mentally retarded and people with Down’s syndrome have work they can do. It’s repetitive work, sure, but we should reserve that sort for them. People need meaning in their lives to be happy, and work brings meaning. This is known.

Having a job, doesn't just mean you are materially able to do it. It also needs to be productive enough to pay for itself. + It needs to be a better outcome than having someone else do it (someone smarter).

Fyi there are 95 millions working age people that are not in the labor force in the US.
In spite of that, we still produce everything we need - including for the 95 millions.
If we can do everything we need without 1/3 of the population, what reasons do you have to think we could find jobs for everyone?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 16, 12:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Aphroman says
For them, we’re not producing everything we need.

But surely we're producing everything we can afford. We're already underwater, cash flow wise.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 16, 12:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I see from other sources Europe emissions were down not up. Not sure what the discrepancy is.
Disappointing was China.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 16, 2:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Hassan_Rouhani says
Disappointing? It was expected behavior and could be seen from 1000 miles away.

Expected or not, it is disappointing.
But explain why it could be seen "from 1000 miles away". Their emissions had been down for a couple of years.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 16, 2:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Reality says
The latter actually justifies a dumber and lower productivity worker. For example, a lawyer who can type 50WPM can certainly do his own secretarial work better than a secretary who can only type 30WPM; however, if the lawyer's time is worth $200/hr, it is in his interest to pay a secretary $20/hr to type up stuff and other secretarial work so he can earn more in the time saved. It's called "comparative advantage,"

Except you have a huge pile of people who are already doing nothing, and in this pile the guy with IQ 80 is desperate to do anything for crumbs, leaving absolutely nothing to the guy with the IQ of 65. There is no comparative advantage for the dumb guy in a pile of useless people.

Reality says
That is a logical fallacy. There are plenty human wants that are not being fulfilled.

Everything you are saying fails to address the point.
People can do jobs. Other people want jobs done. I'm talking of the fact that this needs can't be met in current system. Because for every material object you want the most efficient way to build it is precisely not to use the guy with the IQ at room temperature. This is your fallacy, not mine. People already have cheap nannies and gardeners: this is STILL not enough jobs.

All you are saying is if we paid people less they would have jobs, without ever considering that less work could be afforded with lower pays. And low wages are obviously already constraining any growth. (see my example of half of Americans can't come up with $400)

Not only that but based on the number of USELESS people we already have, if minimum wage limits were removed, and if welfare was removed, and they were forced to compete, there is no reason to think low wages would not collapse to basically 0. Then yes, maybe some people would have whores and lots of domestics, but what good would that do to the workers? It would certainly NOT do any good to the economy, because what these people earn would not add to the aggregate income that is then spent on goods and services as the entire wage scale would collapse.

You are very willing to rationalize and use wishful thinking to get to your predetermined result. I'm backing up what I'm saying with obvious facts.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 16, 2:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Quigley says
does anyone realize how much thought and effort has to go into designing and programming a robot to do something like assembling a phone? I’ll tell you now that the cost is prohibitive. It’s much simpler to use a human who can be trained to do several steps of the process in hours than to spend years of engineer and computer systems man hours on the problem.

No it's not, because once you have designed 1 robot, you can deploy that design in 1 million robots with no extra costs, the robots will work 24x7, they won't strike, they don't need farms, water, and sewers. There is a reason why there is an automation boom underway.

You people are missing the trend that is right in front of your eyes: The world is getting more complex, it is getting faster, it requires more skills, more agility, more smarts, and many people, probably even a majority are just not following. And the trend will NOT stop. On the contrary, it will accelerate until MOST people are useless.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 16, 3:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Philistine says
Cut their jobs and it would make almost no impact to business.

You guys are obsessing about identifying inefficiencies, as if efficiency was the magic cure that would suddenly transform unneeded people into much needed people, rather than the obvious opposite: you would make all these ladies in HR totally useless.

Or maybe Reality would have them sing in the subway for $2/day - What's the difference?

We are not going back to the 50s. The world has changed. Technologies have changed. The past and the future are not symmetric.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 17, 2:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Why? You like train wrecks?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 18, 11:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

We're talking of soccer games, right?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 18, 12:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

And that's not cherry picking...
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 19, 11:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Strategist says
I wonder where the money to pay welfare queens comes from, if not trickle down? My theory:
The rich drink champagne, trickle down on the poor, and magically the piss turns into cash.

Instead of taking the money from the rich as taxes, we borrow it from them, paying them 3% interests.
Big difference.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 11:00am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

Yeah it's all about how leftists think about it.
It has really nothing to do with Trump's constant and obvious lying, his constant narcissism and need for validation, his complete immorality on matter of sexual conduct, respect for veterans, business partners, and people in general, his total disdain for allies and adulation of despots, and enemies of the countries, his inability to focus and control his impulses leading to constant chaos in his team, frequent backtracking and inability to execute any real strategy.
It can't have anything to do with that, right?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 11:18am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Most of those criticisms you could levy on Obama, except Obama didn't put trillions of dollars of wealth into our pockets, not to mention the glut of jobs.

You must be living on a different planet. Obama didn't brag about grabbing pussies, paid prostitutes to shut-up, insulted dead US soldiers and sided with Putin against his own CIA. The level of lying, chaos and incompetence we get from Trump is simply off the chart.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 11:23am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Obama didn't put trillions of dollars of wealth into our pockets, not to mention the glut of jobs.

Obama inherited an economy in free fall and put it back on track.
And job growth is not that great under Trump, especially considering the cost to the national debt.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 11:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
Far from being a saint, yet there's a million times more morality displayed than by the abortion-praising, men and nuclear family-hating, and murderous-criminals glorifying soy-laden pussyhatters.

Oh please.
If any other politician had done what Trump did, their carrier would have immediately ended.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 11:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
Every man does at some point in his life.

Nope, they don't.
People may make bad jokes about sex that's not the same, is it?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 12:10pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Goran_K says
No president in history has added more debt than Obama did. Not Reagan, not Bush, no one.

This is utter BS.
First the rate of debt increase under Obama is not different than it was under Bush is below Reagan for that matter. Yes, I know it's hard for you but the economy is growing exponentially and rates of growth do matter far more than nominal increases.

Second Obama has used debt to put the economy back on a growth trajectory. Whereas Trump is using debt, at a time when the economy doesn't need it, to give more money to rich people. Doing so, he guaranties that the US will be in a much deeper hole when the next downturn inevitably comes.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 12:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says
Clinton was a serial sex pest -

Yeah we really need to compare a consensual extra-marital affair with extra-marital affairs with prostitutes that are then paid to shut-up and then sue you. Again it's unlikely that any other politician carrier would have survived this.

But of course, all the holier-than-thou blessed-asses evangelicals are perfectly happy to look the other way.

Call it however you want, but don't, for a minute, tell us it's all TDS.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 12:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

NuttBoxer says
It's not about Trump being a good President. It's about status quo.

For everyone that doesn't like globalism, corporatism, and identity politics: Trump has discredited the opposition to these ideas, and a large part of the population will see a swing back toward them as a return to sanity.

On a question like China, he doesn't have what it takes to change the current trajectory. Any reasonable American leader would have coordinated with allies. American led multilateralism has long been the true strength of America, starting with the Marshall plan. Trump is paranoiac enough to see everyone else as a threat.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 12:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CovfefeButDeadly says
there is so much noise around the criticism of the Presidents(both Trump and Obama), that its very difficult to defend whats right and criticize whats wrong. As a Trump supporter I find that its next to impossible to criticize the things he does wrong because the media and the left are busy criticizing made up stuff that must be answered first.

There is so much noise because Trump has been adept at deliberately provoking outrage. His actions happen behind constant shrieks of protest from the media about things he says. All signs are that he wants it this way. This is not particularly a good sign from someone that explicitly wants to make the media "the opposition party".
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 12:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says
Democrats in America pooh poohed the whole thing at the time, and wrote articles about how we should be like France, and ignore these kinds of "piccadilloes"

In France, DSK had his carrier ended (at a time when he was in line to be president) after being accused of rape and after rumors of sex parties with hookers.

Now discussing more payments, to Playboy model. I wonder why this didn't happen to Clinton.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 4:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Quigley says
Everyone with two functioning brain cells understands that the mainstream media is utterly owned and controlled by six billionaires who are pro-globalism, pro-New World Order, pro-mass immigration, anti-worker, pro-debt, and pro-military industrial complex. They use social issues du jour and racial issues as a way of muddying the waters and dividing people into camps. Before Trump, those camps were divided down red and blue lines, but the party leadership of BOTH sides was following the script and the agenda set down by these billionaires.

Exactly, except instead of discussing globalism, immigration, anti labor policies, debt and crony capitalism, people are now screaming about pussy grabbers, Stormy Daniels, shitty nations, kids separated from their mothers, immigrants are rapists, etc, etc... Everything fell down to Trump's level.

There is no nuanced debate of complex ideas. There is in fact no debate and no ideas. There is not even a common notion of truth.
There are just 2 sides that ramming into each others, and the original post is an excellent example of that: everything blamed on Trump is just in the head of leftists. The other side is just crazy people. No sorry, it's not.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 20, 4:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
Sure, DT's politics are controversial and there seem to be points of gripe for many, but the unhinged, undemocratic, and fascist behavior is coming from the left. That is what the original article claims and the author is spot on here. I don't think the OP claimed that DT is always right or never lies or embellishes etc.

If DT wasn't constantly, day after day, giving the left reasons to think he's immoral, unhinged, incompetent and possibly treasonous, there would be far less talk about this and far more talk about substance. But that's not what he is doing, is he?
He doesn't want to have a debate about policies. Because that would require nuance and compromise.
He doesn't want to win a war of idea.
No in fact, he definitively wants a situation where he can blame ANY political opposition on mental illness and fascism.
And you guys are very happy to follow him there.

The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions