charliespider @ charliespider @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

148

Joined

2 yr. ago

The speaker of the house is the defacto boss of the parliament and that's who invited the nazi. Even if they knew the history of everyone who enters the building, the PM couldn't have prevented the speaker from inviting this guy. Had ANYONE known this guy's history, this wouldn't have happened.

The PM isn't a dictator with total control over who gets to invite people to Parliament

There's lots of startups making smaller agile AI powered electric robotics for agriculture. Would pair well with a farm like this.

Yes

https://itsfoss.com/open-source-alternatives-android/

I just watched his interview with theoretical physicist Brian Greene... what color flag do I get?

Side note: after watching ONE JRE video I'm getting bombarded with other JRE videos in my feed (and whack job guests I would never watch). He's definitely getting pushed hard by the algorithms.

By your very logic, if they are willing to nuke over nothing, they'll also do it to countries that sanction them.

Good point, but the number of countries sanctioning India would definitely far exceed the number that would retaliate militarily against them. Non-NATO countries would join in on sanctions but would not join the fight, so there would simply be too many sanction targets to retaliate against.

Just because you wouldn't help your friends in a fight or if they got attacked doesn't mean everyone is the same as you and just watch while it happens doing nothing.

I'm Canadian so I've been considering this from the viewpoint of the one who got attacked. I'm really having trouble believing my friends (other NATO countries) would put their necks out on the line, and I think they would be more cautious in the face of their own nuclear destruction.

Great response. I think everything you said is essentially the promise that NATO makes, but as I said to another poster, if India is going to nuke Canada because we accused them of assassination, they will definitely nuke anyone that attacks them. Canada has no nukes of our own, so we couldn't directly retaliate. Now if you're the leader of another NATO country, are you going to risk getting nuked for the sake of NATO? I just don't think anyone else would be willing to step up like that when the shit hits the fan. Think about it... are you willing to risk getting your country nuked for NATO? I just don't know.

I simply disagree. Canada has no nukes of our own so in order to "glass" India, one of the other nuclear powers would have to take that step which then opens them up for retaliation. I just don't know if I trust the commitment of other NATO countries to commit that hard.

Think about it, if India nuked Canada because we accused them of assassination, they will definitely attempt to nuke anyone else that attempts to punish them for that. Now if you're a NATO country other than Canada, are you willing to get yourself nuked as well? I just don't know if anyone else would put themselves in that position.

The reality of the situation is that India would never do something so crazy so it's pointless to speculate about what the response would be.

I don't believe there would be retaliatory nukes as that would just lead to further retaliation. India would quickly get cut off from international trade and financial systems and become a total pariah. Their only friends would be the other pariah states like ruzzia.

Now if the US got nuked there would definitely be military retaliation.

Obviously because the current zero is upside down!

it seems plain that as long as company shares remain tradable, some holders will accumulate fortunes allowing them to survive merely by virtue of their holdings,

Yes, I agree with this, but plz realize that this is not solely dependent on stocks as people can, and do, amass wealth through other means. But it is definitely a big part of the problem.

through profit generated by the work of others.

Sometimes yes... and sometimes no!!!

As long as you choose to fixate on ONE thing, well... then you won't see the entirety of the picture.

Again, people CAN amass wealth without taking advantage of workers, or without trading stocks, and that is STILL a problem.

The trading of stocks itself, not particular laws or codes, supports the stratification of society

??? Where do you think the definition of stocks and the rules governing their trade exists? It absolutely IS particular laws that are the problem.

As I've said in other comments, you could get rid of stocks and replace them with some other set of rules for defining ownership, and guess what? If those totally new rules allow some people to a differentmass billions of dollars of wealth then we're back in the exact same situation... because it's the rules (ie: laws and codes) that are the fucking problem

Want to see a corrupt politician lose their mind? Tell them to increase the capital gains tax.

No dude.

You could get rid of stocks and replace them with a big book written in crayon that keeps track of what percentage of a company someone owns, but if you changed nothing else, billionaires would still exist.

It's the current financial and tax laws that allow billionaires to amass so much wealth, nothing else.

Not enough, but that doesn't mean that stocks are the problem. The current system that allows billionaires to exist is the problem, not stocks themselves. Stocks could just as easily be used to fairly share ownership of a business amongst its workers.

Ya know, workers can own stocks too. There's even companies that give stocks to employees. Stocks themselves are not the problem.

Ya know, workers can own stocks too. There's even companies that give stocks to employees. Stocks themselves are not the problem.

Oh I'm not arguing against the absurdity of someone having a networth in the billions, I'm just trying to add clarity that it's the financial industry and tax laws that allow it to happen.

As opposed to just grunting "BILLIONAIRES BAAAAAAAAD!!!"

Too busy protecting children from drag queens reading books right?

Point taken, but FYI billionaires don't "earn" a billion dollars regardless, it's almost exclusively because their net worth due to stock ownership makes them a billionaire.

If you bought a house somewhere cheap, and then the eyesore old factory down the road gets torn down, and the land around your house explodes in value, you did not make a million dollars in income, even though your house is now worth that much.

As well, most billionaires live off money they borrow at stupid low interest rates because that doesn't count as income. An accountant would be able to explain in depth but that's one of the way they dodge taxes.