Kuribo64
Views: 10,336,587 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
01-26-20 01:41 AM
Guest:

0 users reading Shit's going down in USA (and everywhere else too) | 1 bot

Main - Trash - Shit's going down in USA (and everywhere else too) Thread closed

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Marionumber1
Posted on 04-17-17 12:27 AM Link | #82569
I'm not incredibly upset about Trump not releasing his tax returns, but transparency is always a good thing. Most liberals are probably expecting to find lurid financial ties to Russia that will lead to his impeachment, which I think is ridiculous. What's more likely is that they'll show he's a poster-boy for tax evasion by the wealthy.

And it seems that war is the best way to unite the American people behind you. It worked for George W. Bush, when 9/11 and the "war on terror" sent his popularity soaring and made everyone forget the stolen 2000 election.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 05-04-17 04:07 PM Link | #82851
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/what-are-pre-existing-conditions-what-would-gop-bill-do-n754836

The AHCA is an abomination and those who voted for it are basically supporting stripping healthcare from those who can least afford it. This shit can kill people and also personally affect me as college costs continue rising into obscenity.

Arisotura
Posted on 05-04-17 04:21 PM (rev. 2 of 05-04-17 04:23 PM) Link | #82852
and this weekend we have our election second round: banker Macron vs fascist Le Pen

fascist capitalism vs. er, capitalist capitalism


Macron is likely to win, which will mean fuck you if you're poor, and according to him, everyone should aim at becoming a millionaire. (like we care about being millionaires. maybe we just want to live in a livable world? eat food without wondering whether it has been polluted for the sake of productivity? and, you know, going back to normal climate)

the good old bullshit principle that the value of a human being is proportional to the amount of capital they produce

would you say Trump has any value as a human being?

and modern capitalism also means uberization, ie. working as an "auto-entrepreneur", which they sell you as "giving you freedom, work whenever you want, etc" except:

a) you need to work a fuckton to even survive (see b)
b) you're competing against the other workers for shifts, and you're paid per shift
c) the ones who get freedom are bosses, they do away with the restrictions that come with the regular employee status


ie. Macron is a capitalist shitbag and needs to fuck off


the thread should be renamed to "shit's going down in the whole world", it'd be more accurate

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

zafkflzdasd

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 05-04-17 04:32 PM Link | #82853
Le Penn isn't even a good choice.

It's Hillary vs. Trump all over again. It's just that one induces more vomiting than the other.

Arisotura
Posted on 05-04-17 04:36 PM Link | #82854
I refuse to vote for the 'least bad' though.


voting means you like and trust your candidate. no candidate is trustworthy or remotely likeable.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

zafkflzdasd

Marionumber1
Posted on 05-04-17 04:56 PM Link | #82855
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
Le Penn isn't even a good choice.

It's Hillary vs. Trump all over again. It's just that one induces more vomiting than the other.


These kinds of elections don't make it clear-cut who's worse. In general, neoliberals (like Hillary or Macron) are more insidiously awful than alt-righters/fascists, and are pushing a more dangerous foreign policy. The fact that they get to be called "centrists" is proof of how well their agenda gets disguised as the "reasonable", "moderate" one.

GalacticPirate
Posted on 05-05-17 02:13 PM Link | #82858
I actually support Macron since the beginning. I wholly disagree with Staple's entire post, but let's not create drama (yes, I could draw my views on anticapitalism and communism and that wouldn't be beautiful :P) But Le Pen is so dangerous. If she was elected, I think my father and us would immediately move out to another country. Having our own "money" being devaluated as hell to end in Zimbabwe's situation, spending money we don't have, etc.

Arisotura
Posted on 05-05-17 02:47 PM (rev. 2 of 05-05-17 02:48 PM) Link | #82859
I'd actually be interested into knowing your positions. As long as you aren't ridiculously narrow-minded or outright fascist, there will be no problem.


Regardless, communism isn't supposed to be a totalitarian trainwreck like China or USSR are/were.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

zafkflzdasd

GalacticPirate
Posted on 05-06-17 08:59 AM Link | #82866
OK, so actually what bothers me with communism and radical-left positions in general (from a French POV of course) is that similarly to how Le Pen, Trump & friends design strangers as the main threat, communists design rich people and money in general. It seems like every single rich man is corrupted, has stolen money, and that bosses want to trat their employees as slaves etc. How you described Macron's POV also shows that. Macron is nowhere as economically ultraliberal as our friend Fillon (#RendsLargent) who wants to fire 500,000 gvt employees while he pays his wife €9,000 to prepare coffee.


Regardless, Macron is actually much more social than you'd think (no, really, read his program). When people hear that he wants to add flexibility to work, they immediately think 'fire more easily', while us liberals think 'hire more easily'. I strongly believe that Roosevelt-like methods to make the economy restart after 1929 crisis are not possible today, especially in France, which is nowhere as 'rich' (notice the quotation marks) as Switzerland, Luxemburg or even Germany. What I mean is that we have a lot of debt, and that demand policy is too expensive. See when every single mayor complained that Hollande cut out budget to small cities etc. and increased taxes? There's a reason, which is basically that French State doesn't have money. And I perfectly understand the "more wages equals more consumption equals more profit for companies equals more jobs"philosophy defended by Mélenchon & co, but it isn't viable.
Macron's idea is basically offer policy. By removing stupid rules & taxes that throttles bosses of small companies and even greater ones, they'll be able to hire more easily, etc. Another key thing is social dialogue. By removing the forced equality which means construction workers obey the exact same rules as, say, game devs, Macron wants to allow negotiation between employees and bosses to decide of special rules within the company.

Finally, what bothers me in both far right and far left is the "Infinite money" meme. Communism and Anticapitalism could actually work well if all the world was based around it -- but a single country adopting that while others still are capitalist is like suicide IMO.

Basically what I'm saying is "let the economy restart, all the rest will mechanically follow". And that's true, see how the unemployment curve finally went down in Hollande's last 5 months? :P

Arisotura
Posted on 05-06-17 09:46 AM Link | #82867
I don't share the position that "every rich man is corrupt/bad", just like "all cops are bastards". But nethertheless, the trend is strong. Tax avoidance is a lot of money that could benefit everybody, but instead stays in the megacorporations' pockets. Just like the 'bad' trend is strong among police -- about 50% of police in France are voting for Le Pen, to give you an idea.


"they immediately think 'fire more easily', while us liberals think 'hire more easily'"

Both are true though, one doesn't exclude the other. And that's why I think the system itself is flawed: it basically pits two parties against eachother (workers vs bosses). It is impossible to find a perfect compromise that will make everybody happy. Social protection is a double-edged sword for this reason: it may make it safer for existing employees, so they don't constantly fear losing their job, but bosses will be more reluctant to hire and will raise the entry barriers because they will have more trouble firing a bad employee.


There are also very real ecological issues to the current system. Many people think it is the only viable system, but actually, it isn't viable, and it's heading towards major ecological crisis. Global warming is a good example of it, and it's only the tip of the iceberg.

But the system only works by producing more, always more. So, for example, when everybody has bought their TV set, nobody is buying them anymore. How do you make them buy more TV sets?

For a while, technology progressed fast enough that it gave people an incentive to upgrade. It's less much the case now. This is where planned obsolescence enters: products are carefully planned to fail after a certain time (generally after the warranty expires), and there are all sorts of physical, technical and legal hindrances to repair attempts. Because they want you to buy a new one. Smart objects (IoT) are an upgrade to this, where you can remotely and effectively make a product obsolete ("new firmware version isn't compatible with this hardware") instead of hoping it will break.

Planned obsolescence goes completely against one of the bases of ecology: using resources wisely, reusing and recycling as much as possible. The resources aren't infinite, and it's been said that we took 8 months to consume the amount of resources the Earth can renew in one year, which I wouldn't call a good thing.

Oh, and speaking of global warming, no election candidate, no politician will ever make it end. Even if they wanted, they can't -- what power do they have against big oil? They want to keep selling oil, and they will.

Putting an end to global warming will require getting past politicians and their broken systems.


"Another key thing is social dialogue. By removing the forced equality which means construction workers obey the exact same rules as, say, game devs, Macron wants to allow negotiation between employees and bosses to decide of special rules within the company."

Yeah, we've seen a sample of their "social dialogue" during the "loi travail" protests. A dialogue essentially spoken by riot cops.


Which also brings me to another point, the whole part of jobs and money.

Why do we work? To produce what the society needs. So basically, people make money by producing what they later spend money on. It's a loop.

Why are we paid to work? An idea is to motivate people to work, which is legit. But, what if someone ends up with no money for whatever reason? They don't deserve to live decently any less than anyone else.

Money creates inequalities. The principle is that some forms of work are 'better' than others, and thus deserve more money in return. Which is, well, flawed. Would one say that the cashier, bus driver, or garbage collection employee are "not very useful" to the society? Meanwhile, professional soccer players are paid millions to basically provide entertainment.


Money is also the base of one form of dictatorship, if you will. Many people seek to buy the cheapest items possible, generally because they don't make a lot of money. Which can kill attempts at ethical/clean businesses. Let's say you seek to produce healthy, organic, local food. It's cool and all, but the disgusting industrial practices yield more production at a lesser cost. So in the end, your food is more expensive than your rival's. Many people will still buy your rival's food because it's cheaper, even if it's been polluted with chemicals for the sake of producing more, even if it's been grown under artificial light in artificial soil, even if the animals were bred in batteries where they can't even scratch their ass, even if the bosses employ children whom they pay squat and whom they rape every day.

This form of dictatorship encourages the least ethical production methods, because those are generally the cheapest ones.


I don't pretend to have the answers to everything, but the current system is clearly flawed and not very efficient at dealing with these flaws.


As for the "unemployment rate went down" bit, I would take it with a grain of salt. Especially as it occurs in the president's last months.

The unemployment rates only count the unemployed who are registered. Meanwhile, a common policy is to strike them from the lists if they fail to get a job quickly enough or if they refuse too many job offers. I don't have the exact rules in mind, but this can help artificially lower the numbers.

Who knows.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

zafkflzdasd

GalacticPirate
Posted on 05-06-17 10:39 AM Link | #82869
Yeah, I perfectly understand your point of view. That's a fact: any system or organization is flawed, and capitalist society has a lot of flaws. But instead of thinking we should do a Revolution, I first think of "what we can do to optimize and improved the current system". And I think you'd agree with me: a communist country inside a capitalist world isn't viable. That's what USSR and early China experienced: if you are communist but a majority of your neighbors are capitalists, you're basically fucked. That led USSR&friends to disappear, and D. Xiaoping to "capitalize" China.

Here comes another con of communism: motivation. My father always uses this example. If someone is "paid" to produce 10,000 potatoes, but knows that the amount of money he's paid doesn't vary. Why wouldn't he produce like 100 potatoes, use 99 for his family, and getting the same wage for 1 potato instead of 10k? Money gives motivation and organizes our world, and that's why the Human species progressively moved on to capitalism.

So communism, yes if the entire world switched to it, but this isn't likely to happen. For know I just think we should improve our current society (ie lower unemployment, lower the debt etc. )

And well, fun fact: the unemployment curve started to go down only after Hollande said he wouldn't run for President this time :P

Arisotura
Posted on 05-06-17 12:01 PM Link | #82870
I see where you're going. Aiming at reforming the existing system is a legit idea. The main issue, though, is corruption. As long as we're represented and governed by small groups of individuals, they can easily be corrupted by third parties (corporations for example), and there's no miracle solution for avoiding that. A solution could be giving more immediate power to the people so they could take action against corrupted leaders, but... 'the people' isn't a united group either, various differences exist.


As for communism, the way it's been implemented in China and USSR was still pretty much capitalist in the sense that you still needed to make money to survive. The differences in practice were that everyone was paid the same (or almost, of course the State leaders got more), and everything belonged to the State.

In such a system, reality is warped in that working a job isn't something you to do serve the community/society, it's something you end up doing because you have to, for the sake of your own survival. If you like your job, all is good, but what if you have trouble getting a job? You have to pick the first one that you find. And in the case you land a job you don't like, you're pretty much there for the paycheck only. Of course, in a 'communist' system like those previously described, you would have basically zero incentive to work, you're getting paid either way.

I believe communism would work better in a world where work is what it should be: producing what the community needs. As a member of the community, you would be granted the right to live a decent life, and the "individual survival" aspect of work would be eliminated. I can figure it wouldn't be perfect, but I believe something like this is worth experimenting.


Not like all of this is easy. The current system has been normalized, and reinforced by failures like USSR, so much that most people believe that there is no alternative and that this is the best system we can come up with.


Oh by the way, the scandals revealed by the media are only further normalizing the idea of living under absolutely corrupted management. Phony technological progress ("omg smart spoon, so trendy") is normalizing constant surveillance.

(the part about technology and surveillance isn't some dystopian sci-fi novel, it's becoming reality. When I went to a Carrefour mall in the town, the ClearChannel ad screens there had builtin cameras.)


"And well, fun fact: the unemployment curve started to go down only after Hollande said he wouldn't run for President this time"

Oh, yeah. Gives more credit to Hollande, I guess.

I don't believe the president should be getting all the blame for the bad situation though. In the world we live in, governments are far from being the most powerful entities.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

zafkflzdasd

Marionumber1
Posted on 05-06-17 01:17 PM Link | #82872
Posted by StarTrekVoyager
I strongly believe that Roosevelt-like methods to make the economy restart after 1929 crisis are not possible today, especially in France, which is nowhere as 'rich' (notice the quotation marks) as Switzerland, Luxemburg or even Germany. What I mean is that we have a lot of debt, and that demand policy is too expensive. See when every single mayor complained that Hollande cut out budget to small cities etc. and increased taxes? There's a reason, which is basically that French State doesn't have money. And I perfectly understand the "more wages equals more consumption equals more profit for companies equals more jobs"philosophy defended by Mélenchon & co, but it isn't viable.
Macron's idea is basically offer policy. By removing stupid rules & taxes that throttles bosses of small companies and even greater ones, they'll be able to hire more easily, etc. Another key thing is social dialogue. By removing the forced equality which means construction workers obey the exact same rules as, say, game devs, Macron wants to allow negotiation between employees and bosses to decide of special rules within the company.

Finally, what bothers me in both far right and far left is the "Infinite money" meme.


I don't agree with that. Demand is what drives supply, not the other way around. Businesses are incentivized to produce and hire because people are there to buy their products and services. And the middle class is the biggest contributor to the consumer economy. As such, government economic policy should be focused on raising the financial stature of the lower classes, since it creates consumption that stimulates the rest of the economy.

Supply-side policy (cutting taxes and regulations) is a misguided (if not malicious) inversion of this. Cutting taxes and deregulating businesses is fundamentally just a handout, one that primarily targets the wealthy and corporations. It doesn't automatically incentivize job creation. If the lower and middle classes (the main consumer market) isn't any better off, there isn't going to be much (if any) motivation to produce more, hire more workers, and start businesses.

In reality, the idea of helping the "job creators" so that they'll help everyone else is used by policymakers as an excuse to funnel money into the pockets of the economic elite. They want tax and regulatory breaks, and don't want to give back to the rest of society. Here in America, we've had this kind of supply-side policy for decades. Wages have stagnated, labor rights are destroyed, and bank failures are common thanks to deregulation allowing the financial industry to consolidate and engage in risky speculation.

As for concerns about paying for these programs, keep in mind that FDR's financial policies were enacted in the midst of the Great Depression, the lowest point in the US's economy. They did initially lead to deficits, but they ultimately got the economy revitalized. In fact, when FDR briefly switched to austerity policy in 1937-1938 at the behest of his cabinet, some of the earlier economic gains were lost and the economy went back into recession. Demand-side policy is good for the economy.

I ultimately agree with StapleButter about how capitalism is inherently flawed. My preference for demand-side policy and robust regulation is really about putting a bandage over the significant problems capitalism creates, such as major inequities and environmental degradation. But while we live in a capitalist system, it's best to focus on helping the lower and middle classes, who are the real job creators in a capitalist economy.

GalacticPirate
Posted on 05-07-17 11:15 AM Link | #82878
Posted by Marionumber1
Supply-side policy (cutting taxes and regulations) is a misguided (if not malicious) inversion of this. Cutting taxes and deregulating businesses is fundamentally just a handout, one that primarily targets the wealthy and corporations. It doesn't automatically incentivize job creation. If the lower and middle classes (the main consumer market) isn't any better off, there isn't going to be much (if any) motivation to produce more, hire more workers, and start businesses.


Actually, Hollande's policy since 2014, which is basically that offer-policy, kinda works. Things like the "CICE", aimed mostly towards small companies (ie 0 to 50 employees) effectively created jobs. And while I agree that it can be used by bad people to use the money earned to something else, I believe this phenomenon can be regulated (ie take sanctions against companies who mis-use the additionnal money created by taxes cuts). And even if demand policy can work on the long term, think about the fact that we don't have such time. For example, in France the Pres. is elected for 5 years, and if there aren't positive effects within his mandate, people are gonna vote for someone else (ie fascists in France's case) and multiply the former gvt.'s work by zero.

In reality, the idea of helping the "job creators" so that they'll help everyone else is used by policymakers as an excuse to funnel money into the pockets of the economic elite. They want tax and regulatory breaks, and don't want to give back to the rest of society. Here in America, we've had this kind of supply-side policy for decades. Wages have stagnated, labor rights are destroyed, and bank failures are common thanks to deregulation allowing the financial industry to consolidate and engage in risky speculation.


France is different. Companies (especially little ones) are litterally agonizing from taxes and regulations, and a lot of them fall in bankruptcy. And Thos little companies are the economy's engine. Here, big companies already restarted 'going well', but smaller ones need to follow. It works, it has been tested a little bit by Hollande, but it needs to be pursued.

Finally, labor rights in France are certainly the most protective in the entire world.

As for concerns about paying for these programs, keep in mind that FDR's financial policies were enacted in the midst of the Great Depression, the lowest point in the US's economy. They did initially lead to deficits, but they ultimately got the economy revitalized. In fact, when FDR briefly switched to austerity policy in 1937-1938 at the behest of his cabinet, some of the earlier economic gains were lost and the economy went back into recession. Demand-side policy is good for the economy.


Yeah, but the GD came after a period of prosperity for the US where the debt was reduced a lot. So it was easier afterwards to spend money. France, on the other hand, suffers from debt. The debt is currently of 97.6 % of the GDP, in slight decrease. The goal is to avoid falling into a Spain/Greece-like situation. If Hollande didn't make a lot of budget cuts, France would be doomed at more than 100% of GDP. 100% is the limit where you fall in a vicious circle, with international banks not trusting you anymore, resulting into an increase in interest rates and therefore the debt going up. Trust me, if we had the possibility to do such a demand policy, we would've done that since 2008 under Sarkozy. Plus, Germany, who indeed did austerity after crisis, actually is in a better shape compared to France.

I see where you're going. Aiming at reforming the existing system is a legit idea. The main issue, though, is corruption. As long as we're represented and governed by small groups of individuals, they can easily be corrupted by third parties (corporations for example), and there's no miracle solution for avoiding that. A solution could be giving more immediate power to the people so they could take action against corrupted leaders, but... 'the people' isn't a united group either, various differences exist.


People like Fillon and Sarkoezy contributed to this image in France, where corruption isn't really a threat. People at Les Républicains suffer from a embezzlers reputation, and that's kinda true. But now, nobody trusts politicians anymore. That's also why Macron wants to renew the politics scene by bringing new and young people :P

I don't believe the president should be getting all the blame for the bad situation though. In the world we live in, governments are far from being the most powerful entities.


I think any normal human would've suicided if they were in Hollande's situation. The guy has been bashed and insulted for every possible reason for 5 years. And I mostly agree. Sarkozy left the country in a bad condition, and Hollande did what he could. With the "Frondeurs" wanting to fuck his lmandate up, and "Les Républicains" voting against any single law and then complaining there isn't any law, he hasn't had a simple task. And while the figures aren't exactly better than in 2012 (still, Hollande managed to annihilate the "Sécu" hole, which is pretty awesome), he left the country in a situation which is favorable for the nect President.

Arisotura
Posted on 05-13-17 09:14 AM Link | #83032
oh hey btw, if you didn't know, the DAPL is finished and it's already been leaking


s u r p r i s e


nonviolent protests were a legit idea but we see how well it has worked

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

zafkflzdasd

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 05-20-17 06:14 PM Link | #83236
Link?

Arisotura
Posted on 05-20-17 06:21 PM (rev. 2 of 05-20-17 06:22 PM) Link | #83237
burp


I wasn't quite right tho, it's not 100% finished yet, but it's already been leaking

and the only projects they have are "build more pipelines"

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

zafkflzdasd

GalacticPirate
Posted on 05-21-17 01:12 PM Link | #83250
Sucks. I really hope the shitbag called Trump gets fired.



LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 05-21-17 03:42 PM Link | #83252
We call that "impeached".

And I do too, but Mike Pence is next in line and that man isn't fit to rule the nation either.

Arisotura
Posted on 05-21-17 03:43 PM (rev. 2 of 05-21-17 03:43 PM) Link | #83253
rather say the system needs to be changed deeply


a system as good as we think wouldn't have let Trump become president

but, alas, it's easier to blame it on those who didn't vote

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

zafkflzdasd
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Main - Trash - Shit's going down in USA (and everywhere else too) Thread closed

Page rendered in 0.045 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 26, rows: 231/231, time: 0.030 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2018-07-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.