So you're saying that UBI would lead to higher costs of living, because companies can charge more because people can spend more.
Then, explain to me, how did it come that in the 1960s, Americans were wealthy? How could they afford so much stuff back then? Corporate greed already existed back then; why didn't it just eat up the wealth of the citizens?
I was so surprised when California Protester Shootings happened and everybody acted surprised.
I had always just assumed that the US is a terrorist state and these things happen regularly. It surprised me a lot when people acted all shocked about it.
"In the face of the disruption of order and acts of systematic violence, the state will enforce its constitutional mandate to guarantee peace," said Juan Carlos Orillac, minister of the presidency.
It is telling that the only direct quote in the article comes from the side of the state, not from the side of the workers.
Journalists, do a better job. Report on people's view, not company's point of view of things.
There's a nice story i heard a while ago about why russian street infrastructure sucks so much.
Russia was worried about getting invaded by the US. Invasions (permanent ones especially) happen over the land, more than over the air. So they have to move a lot of land troops (soldiers, vehicles, tanks) over a significant distance. By keeping the russian infrastructure weak, any invader would face significant logistical difficulties, where they couldn't move troops through the country quickly.
By the winter, the troops would get stuck, food re-supplies would be difficult, and they would starve.
Or so i was told. Maybe it's a myth, but i like the idea: Invaders (especially if they have more soldiers, more weapons, more power) are best fought by disabling their biggest advantage: their flexibility and speed. Disable the street infrastructure. Make it difficult for cars to pass in and out of the area.
A nice analogy for today might be to not take on ICE agents directly (i.e. one-on-one fist fight or sth), but instead disable their mobility. Slash their car's tires. Put obstacles in their paths. Park other cars in front of theirs while they are operating. They might be surprise-predators, but their biggest advantage is that they appear out of nowhere, abduct someone, and leave. If you can slow them down, make them stuck for an hour, bystanders / community has a chance to organize and fight back.
Here's what i meant by "russian street infrastructure", in case anybody finds it interesting :) (i do)
For the past two months, Iran had been in diplomatic negotiations with the Trump administration, and both sides appeared to be getting closer to a deal that would drastically curtail Tehran’s enrichment of uranium and prevent any path to the bomb.
Then Israel attacked. It acted less to pre-empt an Iranian bomb than to preempt American diplomacy.
Most people can't handle the type of information. Most people fall for rage-bait, hate-inducing, right-wing propaganda.
We need to find a way to make the internet a thing where there's only people on it who actually want to use the internet in a healthy way.
One way to do this is to say no to commercialized parts of the internet. Say no to all commercial platforms selling ads or selling your data. These are full of rage-bait and only attract the worst in humans.
the thing is, when you build rockets, and they actually work, and put people on mars, you can reasonably demand that people who demand exponential growth actually go to mars, because earth is already full. this way, you can get rid of the billionaires.
MAGA still lives in the times between 1680 to 1880, mentally.
A time when people had 6 children on average, the mindset that we call "conservative" today worked out, men did blue-collar jobs while women stayed at home and cared for their children.
That was a prosperous, interesting time from the point of view of white settlers. MAGA still things back at that time, and thinks, if they can just behave the same way that people back then did, they'll have the same, prosperous way of life.
Fact is, that way of life stopped working because the circumstances changed. All of US is settled, there's no more space, people can't have 6 children anymore, it doesn't make sense for women to stay at home anymore.
I remember there was a study done on how to best slaughter swine (pigs).
The methods that were investigated included: a mechanical hit on the head, suffocation in CO2, and some other measures.
What was found was not only that the suffocation method caused significant stress in the animals, but also that the meat collected this way tasted way worse than meat collected through other slaughtering methods.
this could be relevant in this case: if fish suffocate slowly to death, meat producers might have a financial incentive to change that, to be able to sell better-quality meat, possibly at a higher price. anyways, it would make for good advertisement. that is why meat-producers (fish-producers) should take this seriously.
but is it significant harm, compared to other things?
i mean, every company harms the environment somewhat. streets pollute the environment through their presence. oil refineries leak huge amounts of methane into the air. factories often produce toxic chemicals as by-products.
gandalf_der_12te @ gandalf_der_12te @discuss.tchncs.de Posts 23Comments 1,316Joined 2 yr. ago
So you're saying that UBI would lead to higher costs of living, because companies can charge more because people can spend more.
Then, explain to me, how did it come that in the 1960s, Americans were wealthy? How could they afford so much stuff back then? Corporate greed already existed back then; why didn't it just eat up the wealth of the citizens?