UmeU @ UmeU @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

311

Joined

2 yr. ago

Astrologically correct accurate time? What does that mean?

It’s kind of ironic how you give an example of black and white, with no grey area, and then immediately demonstrate black and white thinking,

Are there some politicians who solely work as a paid agents of billionaire lobbyist groups? Sure.

Do all politicians work together harmoniously with the sole purpose of capitulating to some unnamed ‘they’? Unlikely.

Are both sides the same? Demonstrably not.

The truth is that the world is complex and there are a lot of moving parts. There is no unified force ‘behind the curtain’. Any conspiracy as large as you suggest requires too many people to be ‘in on it’ and working together.

Surprised I had to scroll to see bread machine.

I bought a rather expensive machine… used it 3 times, bread is not very good.

Then I went down the homemade sourdough rabbit hole, now I am making artisan loafs with my homemade starter… super enjoyable process and the bread is amazing!

Is is spelled spelled or spelled spelt?

Depends on you

Yup, agreed completely.

Yea that all makes sense. I guess what I was trying to say was that taking the money out of the hands of the ultra wealthy seems less likely to actually happen than the smaller changes which are indeed happening slowly but surely, like greater access to clean water, food, shelter, education, the empowerment of women, etc. Generally speaking, those small changes are happening across the planet and I have hope that those changes will continue. A world with actual wealth equality just seems like a pipe dream, but on the other hand, things like indoor plumbing seem achievable globally.

You kind of lost me at ‘if we house, feed, and educate people than it will be more expensive to go to the movies or have internet’

The only hope we have of leveling the playing field is to focus on the achievable goals I mentioned. I don’t see why it is necessary to take from the rich to achieve these goals.

Don’t get me wrong, if it was at all possible to level the playing field by redistributing the wealth of the rich, that would be my first choice, I just don’t think that’s possible the way things are. I think it would be defeatist to think that that is the only way to lift people out of poverty.

Edit: one other point is that everyone benefits from less poverty, including the wealthy. The incentive is there for these changes to occur. Poor people don’t make very good consumers. Dealing with the effects of poverty is ironically a massive economic burden on society.

I really which it were that simple… they elect the politicians, they write the legislation, and even if somehow they were taxed at 95% they would still pay $0, like they do now ): it’s really hard not to feel apathetic when it comes to late stage capitalism. That invisible hand has got us by the balls.

Fair enough, but how do we take the money from the rich people if they are the people writing legislation and funding elections? Does it really matter what percent we declare that they are taxed when they pay precisely 0 percent at the end of the day?

And watch the few remaining small businesses who are operating on a shoestring budget and are the only ones actually paying capital gains get eaten up by the large corporations who offshore their gains. Small businesses who have debt aren’t able to write off principal debt payments so on the books they make money that they pay tax on, but in reality they just gave that money back to the bank to pay off ‘business assets’ which aren’t worth shit when the business isn’t making money. So they make just enough money to pay the bank, then are hit with taxes for the money they paid the bank, and they float by in the red until the inevitable bankruptcy. If they are a franchise, corporate then comes in and sells the business to the next sucker who is willing to gamble on the false hope of the franchise model. Big corporate sells the business to a new ‘owner’ every 5 or 10 years, and the banks get another government backed SBA loan with no risk.

We are in the latter days of capitalism, increasing capital gains won’t work when the big guys already don't pay shit.

This is going to get downvoted ):

Preventing people from becoming rich is not what we should be focused on. A maximum wage is a good headline but doesn’t make any sense at all (read other comments on this post).

We should be focused on eliminating poverty and building up the middle class.

I hate the reality of super rich people existing in a world where millions starve to death or don’t have access to clean drinking water, but rather than focus on eliminating the ultra wealthy (which just won’t happen), we should be pushing to lift people out of poverty, which might happen if push comes to shove.

Learning from mistakes and bad takes is an admirable thing, it’s a part of what defines one’s character.

Steve Harvey is just a giant piece of shit.

Nothing wrong with having 3 cards, in fact that seems to be the sweet spot. Closing cards is never good so you don’t want to just go around willy nilly opening up cards.

You are absolutely right in that you have to use it to have a good score, but you have to use it wisely. Maintain a low balance, don’t allow cards to go dormant, keep requesting increases to available credit every 6 months so that your utilization will be minimized, and diversify your portfolio with three cards, and at least one line of credit that you never use, and a revolving account like a car or home once you are ready. Sounds like you figured out their formula, congrats on the 800+.

I was 812 until I bought a house, and that knocked me down to 760. Everything I read indicates that It will take at least 5 years of making extra payments on my house for me to get back to 800+, not that it really matters because the only reason I needed a high score in the first place was to get the house.

If your total utilization is greater than 10%, or if you have a high balance carried over multiple months, your score will decrease. It will be a few months after the balance is paid in full and you utilization is reduced to below 10% that your score will recover. Then you are stuck with that card because if you ever close it, you will take another hit.

Opening a credit account is a commitment and shouldn’t be done just to get an interest free period on an appliance. You will be hit with a hard inquiry when you open the card, and will be hit if you ever close the card. An interest free period is not really a great sign-on bonus anyway because if you take them up on that, you will see a temporary hit to your score.

If you spend thousands a year at Home Depot (like a contractor or handyman) then a Home Depot card makes sense. I spend a lot at Costco so the Costco card makes sense, also the Amazon prime card makes sense for me because I shop at Whole Foods a lot.

A credit card should be paid off in full soon after you make the purchase. Get your points / cash back / etc and never allow a balance to hit the statement. The real value of the card is in the points/cash back.

I hope this is satire… because that’s not how you are supposed to use credit cards if you want to have a good credit score.

Interest or not, you should never carry a balance on a credit card. You should also never have more than 10% utilization.

Looks like you probably did three things which hurt your score… having a new account, carrying a balance, and possibly having more than 10% utilization.

I know the whole credit score thing seems stupid, but if you know how their calculations work you can get a high score in just a few years of doing everything correctly.

White nationalism shouldn’t be revered, but the right to freedom of expression should be.

The right for me to swing my fist ends where your chin begins.

Let’s just take the first and third questions to start.

You answered question 1 with yes, which is, to the dismay of us both, the correct answer, congratulations.

Given the context of your correct answer to 1, your answer to question 3 is irrational.

Let’s say you are at a grocery store and they offer you paper or plastic bags. Let’s say you have too many things to carry and you forgot your reusable bag at home. You have two choices, paper or plastic, and no other choices. If you are absolutely going to leave the store with one of those two choices, and I tell you not to take plastic, then I am at the same time telling you to take paper. This is the law of the excluded middle.

Now if you reply to my example with a ‘well I just won’t go to the store’, or ‘that’s a false dichotomy’ then re read the example again a few more times and see your answer to question 1.

On to question two.

I read your response to question two at least 5 times and I still can’t find the words yes OR no. If you think both choices are equally bad, you would answer no. If you think one is worse than the other, you would answer yes. Easy peasy. Instead, you responded with incoherent nonsense… negative ten and positive ten equals zero, things will get worse in a different order… what the hell are you talking about? The question is a very simple yes or no question. You can’t even get this one wrong so long as you answer with yes or no, I am asking your opinion.

If you think they are equally bad, we can discuss that, but you didn’t choose an answer here. No need for subtext, just yes or no will do nicely.

Despite your embracing the roll of a dishonest interlocutor, you made some progress here by, reluctantly, answering question one with a straight answer.

So if you share in my goal of holding as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, would you like to take another shot at question two, and then show your work for your answer to question 3?

That’s a clever way to continue to dodge the questions.

Do you agree that it will be one or the other?

Do you agree that one is worse than the other?

Do you agree that telling people to not vote for one is the same as shilling for the other?

These are easy questions and you are dodging them.

If you want to throw your vote away, that’s fine. If that helps you sleep at night, fair enough. But going around telling people not to vote for Biden is essentially the same thing as telling people to vote for trump. I understand you wish that weren’t the case, you wish a 3rd party was a viable option, but that simply is not realistic for this upcoming election.

There are a lot of us out here who fear trump more than we dislike Biden… and if you think they are the same then you can’t see the forest through the trees.