TheDemonBuer @ TheDemonBuer @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

852

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think a general strike could be the absolute most effective form of nonviolent resistance. Unfortunately, I have no idea how a nationwide general strike could possibly be organized. How do you get a couple hundred million American workers to even agree to do it, let alone actually do it? I know some people would respond that you don't need all workers, just enough of them, but, while even just 10% of workers striking could have a huge impact, people aren't going to direct the anger they feel about the resulting disruptions at the top, they'll direct it toward those workers.

I think the system is extremely, fundamentally flawed. You disagree. That's fine. You like things the way they are. I don't. I think radical changes are necessary.

Ok, I'm willing to admit that a quid pro quo relationship between a politician and their voter base is not necessarily a bad thing. And, yes, you're also right that it is a bad thing when politicians say one thing to a voter base and then don't follow through or keep their promises. And, yes, this instance with Trump is an example of a politician making a promise to prospective voters and then keeping that promise. I just don't think that's always a good thing. If a bunch of voters want a politician to do some fucked up shit, the politician promises to do said fucked up shit, and then follows through on that promise, that's not a good thing, even if it is politics working the ways it's supposed to work.

I want to believe we've reached peak stupid, but, who am I kidding, we can, and probably will, get much stupider.

Well, your initial comment just took issue with the quid pro quo nature of the exchange, and I was just pointing out that it's how politics is done.

I take issue with the quid pro quo nature of the exchange, and politics in general. Politicians need votes, but they also need money. When politicians are courting groups, they're not just seeking their votes, they're seeking their money and donations, as well. This incentivizes candidates to seek the support of those with the most money to give. Support for a candidate, through both votes and donations, is an investment, and the expectation is a return on that investment.

Also, while it makes perfect sense that a politician would seek the votes of those with whom they are ideologically aligned, the ideology itself matters. Even if no money is exchanged between the politician and the candidate, if their shared ideology is that some people should be able to get very rich, even at the expense of others, then those voters will give their votes to the candidate believing that it is financially beneficial for them to do so.

Plus, what if the ideology of the politician and the voter group they are trying to court is aggressively hostile to democracy itself? A quid pro quo relationship between them would make sense, but it is antithetical to the overall institution.

If you want people to vote for you, you tell them you'll accomplish their political goals.

But whose political goals should get priority? Not every group has the same political goals, and often the goals of one group will run counter to those of other groups?

last May at the Libertarian National Convention, Trump pledged to pardon Ulbricht in exchange for Libertarians’ vote.

Ah, there it is. Good ol' fashioned quid pro quo.

Yesterday my colleague Kate Riga noted a trap Senate Democrats keep falling into: in an effort to court Republican defectors they temper their criticism of the various Trump nominees. But since there are and will be no defectors they lose on both sides of the equation, gaining no defectors and making their critiques tepid and forgettable. This is unquestionably true. But we can go a step further still. Far from courting potential defectors, they should be attacking them.

If trying to court Republican defectors is a futile effort, who should the Democrats be trying to court? This article seems deliberately vague on that point. The article implies that the Democrats should make less tepid, less forgettable critiques of Trump nominees, that they should attack them, even, but for what reason? Seemingly, it's to court people other than Republican defectors, but who would that be? Relatively moderate, neoliberal technocrats? Do any still exist?

We are all the addict, because we all want the relative luxuries, conveniences, and comforts of a "middle class," or higher, modern life. I'm no exception. But, the relative good life that is afforded to many in the modern world is heavily connected to fossil fuels.

As living standards have increased over the past few centuries, so has fossil fuel use. And the connection between the two is not arbitrary. The relatively high living standards of a modern, middle class lifestyle require a relatively high amount of energy. Fossil fuels are very energy dense. We need energy, fossil fuels contain a lot of energy, it's not terribly complicated.

A lot of people posit that a modern middle class lifestyle is possible without getting any energy from fossil fuels. That would be great if true, but it is a yet unproven hypothesis. It's entirely possible that an end to fossil fuel use also means an end to at least some of the luxuries of modern living, especially at the very upper end.

But, honestly this might all be a moot point, because modern life also seems to be dependent on an infinite growth paradigm and infinite growth isn't possible, regardless of the energy source. It's possible that humans just aren't capable of living sustainably at these scales and at these levels of advancement. Sustainability requires that there be such a thing as "enough," but is there such a thing as enough for most people? I don't know.

Some people think all profit is "stolen" labor value, and thus all wage labor is exploitation. I don't think that's true, but it is true that all for-profit firms have an incentive to pay their workers as little as possible, while getting as much productivity from them as possible, because that will maximize profits.

For-profit companies also have an incentive to cut other costs as much as possible, to maximize profits. This is why we see things like shrinkflation, planned obsolescence, or products just getting gradually crappier over time.

For-profit companies also have an incentive to externalize certain costs, like pollution, environmental destruction, or resource depletion, to, once again, maximize profits.

Macron referred to expected changes in Washington's foreign policy, citing the need to reduce reliance on the United States for security.

As an American, I also urge Europe to reduce its reliance on the US, for security or anything else. You're going to want to insulate yourselves as much as possible from my unbelievably stupid, and potentially very dangerous country.

I think most Americans, Colorado notwithstanding, believe that the US is exceptional. Most Americans still believe the US is the "shining city upon a hill," as Reagan put it. Maybe it's not as many as it used to be, but I think it's still most.

In doing so, the United States will join a tiny club of countries outside of the global consensus

The US is proudly outside of the global consensus on many issues and standards. Many, if not most Americans, believe that we are different, special, exceptional. We don't join the rest of the world, the rest of the world joins us, whether they want to or not.

I have nothing against people getting rich - even grotesquely rich

Well, I have a problem with it, but that's beside the point.

My intent wasn't to take a moral position on wealth accumulation itself, or the accumulation of "real" wealth versus speculative wealth, only to point out that much of the incredible wealth of the people at the very top isn't what I would consider to be fully "real." That's all.

I didn't say all of their wealth is fake. Much of their wealth is very "real."

Yes, even if the numbers are at least partly fictitious (or even mostly), it is still true that a very large percentage of real wealth is owned and controlled by a relatively small number of people. The way we understand and measure value needs to change, because it is very skewed and not based in reality (our current system is apparently operating on the premise that we can create a seemingly infinite amount of value, but that's not physically possible on a planet with finite resources), but the wealth that has "real" value is very unequally distributed and that needs to change, as well.

Billionaire wealth surges to 'unimaginable' levels in 2024 as Oxfam predicts emergence of five trillionaires within a decade

It's less impressive when you realize that much, if not most, of that wealth isn't "real." The vast majority of that wealth is in corporate stock, and the value of the stock is based on a lot of speculation. How much of that trillions of dollars in corporate stock will ever be converted to cash? Who knows, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being only a small portion, and well less than a trillion dollars.

I, personally, will never buy a Tesla. I would consider buying an EV, but never a Tesla.

The world has reached peak agricultural land, so to feed an increasing number of people, will need to increase agricultural land efficiency (increased food production per hectare). This will likely mean less meat production, since meat production is not a maximally efficient use of land, in calories produced per hectare. That's certainly not a bad thing, as a mostly plant based diet is better for human health and the environment.

But, we have committed to a market based distribution system, so it's up to the invisible hand, which is not necessarily great at achieving maximum efficiency.

Mega dumb ass.