Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 1073 1074 [1075] 1076 1077 ... 3606

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 4435798 times)

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Happy New Years!
« Reply #16110 on: January 02, 2018, 07:52:44 am »

Aristocracy are a mix of all the things people don’t like though. They’re rich folks receiving state welfare.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

the way your fingertips plant meaningless soliloquies makes me think you are the true evil among us.

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
  • This text isn't very personal.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Happy New Years!
« Reply #16111 on: January 02, 2018, 08:46:28 am »

"If you feel the need to give something back, you took too much."

Different guy, but yeah.  I really liked that talk, too.  That was a great line.
What? That's a terrible line.  I feel a need to "give back" because I think it's the right thing to do - not because I took too much.  Maybe it's missing some context?

Also, fun fact: even if you pitchfork all the "rich" folks, you may have a population that feels better for a little bit, but the remaining population won't actually suddenly benefit from the wealth previously owned by those folks.  Especially since most of that wealth is ledger wealth - it will just evaporate when the banking system collapses.
Logged
This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid which is known to the State of California to cause cancer, reproductive harm, and other health issues.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Happy New Years!
« Reply #16112 on: January 02, 2018, 09:31:35 am »

True in some regards, but being freed of all debts (due to said collapse), with property ownership redistributed (meaning rent lords get the pitchfork too, and people continue habitating where they are without further obstacle) solves two major issues with upward mobility.  It causes all kinds of harm, but greatly promotes new growth.

However, as I sardonically mentioned prior, it DOES NOTHING to solve the fundemental cause of the inequality: People desiring to be more prosperous/better than their neighbors. (Or, more historically, "Looking after their own" at the detriment of everyone else.)

It is a destructive and wasteful cycle. It is best to escape it while still in the mostly prosperous side of the cycle, rather than try to interject high minded ideals after the reset, when people are more worried about the angry mobs and pitchforks.
Logged

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
  • This text isn't very personal.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Happy New Years!
« Reply #16113 on: January 02, 2018, 09:50:38 am »

However, as I sardonically mentioned prior, it DOES NOTHING to solve the fundemental cause of the inequality: People desiring to be more prosperous/better than their neighbors. (Or, more historically, "Looking after their own" at the detriment of everyone else.)

It is a destructive and wasteful cycle. It is best to escape it while still in the mostly prosperous side of the cycle, rather than try to interject high minded ideals after the reset, when people are more worried about the angry mobs and pitchforks.
I'd almost modify this slightly - generally it's not even explicitly "at the detriment of everyone else" but merely "indifferent to what happens to everyone else."  The fact that indifference becomes detrimental to others I think is just an emergent phenomenon.  At least in developed nations that's the case - history does show that people can tend towards actively harming others to ensure their own gain (or even mere stability).

But yes, I agree that if you don't explicitly take extra effort to ensure that your personal economic activities are not detrimental to others, they probably will be.  Because despite what some ivory-tower folks claim, there are large swaths of the economy which indeed are zero-sum games.  Real estate is a perfect example of this one - all geographic locations and their natural resources are by physical nature unique and to some extent non-fungible.
Logged
This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid which is known to the State of California to cause cancer, reproductive harm, and other health issues.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Happy New Years!
« Reply #16114 on: January 02, 2018, 10:14:31 am »

"If you feel the need to give something back, you took too much."

Different guy, but yeah.  I really liked that talk, too.  That was a great line.
What? That's a terrible line.  I feel a need to "give back" because I think it's the right thing to do - not because I took too much.  Maybe it's missing some context?

It means no one should ever take so much to begin with.  If someone is able to take so much that giving back is required to repair damages, then something is wrong.


Also, fun fact: even if you pitchfork all the "rich" folks, you may have a population that feels better for a little bit, but the remaining population won't actually suddenly benefit from the wealth previously owned by those folks.  Especially since most of that wealth is ledger wealth - it will just evaporate when the banking system collapses.

I don't think imaginary numbers is what people would be taking in a pitchfork scenario.  It would be homes and food.  Stuff the banking system prevents them from obtaining now.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
  • This text isn't very personal.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Happy New Years!
« Reply #16115 on: January 02, 2018, 01:23:40 pm »



It means no one should ever take so much to begin with.  If someone is able to take so much that giving back is required to repair damages, then something is wrong.


:

I don't think imaginary numbers is what people would be taking in a pitchfork scenario.  It would be homes and food.  Stuff the banking system prevents them from obtaining now.

I'd challenge you to come up with some non-arbitrary definition and mechanism to determine what is the difference between "earning fair income" and "taking wealth" from others.

I think such a definition might be possible, but if so it's really difficult.  I've not been able to come up with one that doesn't depend on sentiment.

That said, it's not the banking system alone that prevents people from obtaining food and housing.  I mean, at its core, the banking system is merely "If you make a promise to repay something, you should repay it."  The bigger issues are with consumer protection systems (or lack thereof) which allow people to promise things under duress, or allow penalties to be added onto repayment terms regardless of extraordinarily situations, stuff like that.
Logged
This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid which is known to the State of California to cause cancer, reproductive harm, and other health issues.

Karnewarrior

  • Bay Watcher
  • That guy who used to be here all the time
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Happy New Years!
« Reply #16116 on: January 02, 2018, 02:07:41 pm »

Getting rid of modern consumerist culture would help as well. A wave of asceticism would help the poor have more liquid funds available for important things; every 500 dollars spent on Jordans is 500 not going towards bills or education or saving for a house or whatnot.

It wouldn't fix everything, and the rich would complain that nobody's buying their luxury objects any more, but it'd be good for the poor, I think.

But I can't tell you how many idiots I knew in the military who took their extra deployment money and bought Ferrari's and shit. Then couldn't pay the bill on the thing because it's a friggin' Ferrari. We really need to make financial education a core class in mandatory schooling. Maybe that will help.
Logged
Thou art I, I art Thou.
The trust you have bestowed upon thy comrade is now reciprocated in turn.
Thou shall be blessed when calling upon personae of the Hangman Arcana.
May this tie bind thee to a brighter future!​
Ikusaba Quest! - Fistfighting space robots for the benefit of your familial bonds to Satan is passe, so you call Sherlock Holmes and ask her to pop by.

sluissa

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Back to work Congress!
« Reply #16117 on: January 02, 2018, 02:19:59 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEtygP1Qfjk

A fairly solid depiction of how many people view their bad choices.

I personally have a hard time arguing for stopping people from making bad decisions, but that doesn't mean it's not worth considering in some cases.
Logged

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Back to work Congress!
« Reply #16118 on: January 02, 2018, 02:21:40 pm »

Sen. Orrin Hatch is retiring and not running for a new term.

This makes the Utah Senate election this year wide open, also potentially could result in a Sen. Mitt Romney.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEtygP1Qfjk

A fairly solid depiction of how many people view their bad choices.

I personally have a hard time arguing for stopping people from making bad decisions, but that doesn't mean it's not worth considering in some cases.

Whatever the hell happened to YouTube at least attempting to provide captions on everything? pfft....
Logged

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Happy New Years!
« Reply #16119 on: January 02, 2018, 03:15:19 pm »



It means no one should ever take so much to begin with.  If someone is able to take so much that giving back is required to repair damages, then something is wrong.


:

I don't think imaginary numbers is what people would be taking in a pitchfork scenario.  It would be homes and food.  Stuff the banking system prevents them from obtaining now.

I'd challenge you to come up with some non-arbitrary definition and mechanism to determine what is the difference between "earning fair income" and "taking wealth" from others.

I think such a definition might be possible, but if so it's really difficult.  I've not been able to come up with one that doesn't depend on sentiment.

That said, it's not the banking system alone that prevents people from obtaining food and housing.  I mean, at its core, the banking system is merely "If you make a promise to repay something, you should repay it."  The bigger issues are with consumer protection systems (or lack thereof) which allow people to promise things under duress, or allow penalties to be added onto repayment terms regardless of extraordinarily situations, stuff like that.

No, not the banking system specifically.  But it's an important part of the general apparatus.

I'm not sure how to answer your question, or how it relates.  It seems like a total non-sequitur to me.

If you want to get to the core of things, I personally believe in dismantling the concept of property.  And I mean that as something separate from possession.  I don't believe people should be able to legitimately claim ownership of something that they don't personally relate to.  If someone can amass a good amount of material luxury for themselves, I don't have a problem with that.  Live in a nice house, drive a nice car, eat expensive food, etc.  But then a bank owns a house purely for the sake of wielding power over others.  That's where I have a problem.  When there's an extreme minority class of people who wield absurd amounts of power over others through the control resources, that's something completely separate from the resources being consumed in one's own personal luxury, in both action and consequence.

And yeah... in our current socioeconomic paradigm, it's hard to divorce that from the nuts and bolts of how society operates.  Doesn't change the nature of what it is.  Also doesn't mean it's impossible to change.  I liken it to an operating system.  I think capitalism was appropriate for a certain stage of humanity, but circumstances have changed too much now.  It's become obsolete.  Time to adopt a new OS.  It's a pain in the ass, but the alternative is frying our hardware.  Between automation, environmental constraints on consumption, and the digitization of currency combined with instant transfer and processing of information allowing for increasingly rapid boom/bust cycles and wealth consolidation... it just can't work anymore.  Even if we manage to reset inequality, it will come right back around to this faster than before.  That's just what the incentives and power dynamics are designed to do.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2018, 03:16:59 pm by SalmonGod »
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

WealthyRadish

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Happy New Years!
« Reply #16120 on: January 02, 2018, 03:36:32 pm »

Getting rid of modern consumerist culture would help as well. A wave of asceticism would help the poor have more liquid funds available for important things; every 500 dollars spent on Jordans is 500 not going towards bills or education or saving for a house or whatnot.

It wouldn't fix everything, and the rich would complain that nobody's buying their luxury objects any more, but it'd be good for the poor, I think.

If every (emphasis on "every") person in poverty were to uniformly devise and accept new ways of saving money for the purposes of financial solvency, that level of subsistence would merely become the new minimum against which employers can set wages and landowners can charge rents. An individual in poverty can find all manner of ways of scrimping and saving that may aid in alleviating their poverty relative to their peers, but if everybody did it landlords would gradually realize that they can charge more rent and employers would allow wages to stagnate behind inflation.

So in the aggregate, increased "thrift" among the working poor as a whole can't raise the standard of living. It's an idea older than industry that the poor owe their misery to their own wastefulness and lack of temperance, but this idea isn't borne out economically or practically, and has historically been promulgated by Malthus-types and the militantly religious. There's a similar argument around that more and better education would elevate the working poor, but this has a similar non-effect when applied uniformly (assuming all else is equal). For example, when nearly the entire population was illiterate, literacy was a massive advantage that could command a much more comfortable level of subsistence, but today it offers almost nothing. Today the middle class spends their entire youth and early adult life desperately seeking a means of distinguishing themselves relatively from other workers without a college degree, but if everybody had one, real wages would be unchanged and the degree would simply be worthless (of course, this is complicated somewhat by globalization, as that "everybody" has suddenly gotten somewhat larger).

The sneakers example is particularly ludicrous. I work in a restaurant, and most of my white coworkers are drug addicts or alcoholics; if they spend a trifle on some nice sneakers, good for them. That's $500/year that isn't hoovered up by a $42/month rent hike to some slumlord.

Edit:
One more point. You'll notice that is almost always unmarried individuals without children who are even afforded these little luxuries, like sneakers or casual alcoholism. The real level of subsistence that I'm talking about settles around the level necessary to have a family, who are kept perpetually at a state of either abject squalor or incessant overwork to maintain the barest existence for their children. Single people luck out; if reproduction were free, nobody among them would be buying these sneakers.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2018, 03:45:40 pm by UrbanGiraffe »
Logged

sluissa

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Back to work Congress!
« Reply #16121 on: January 02, 2018, 04:35:36 pm »

There are benefits to being childless and unmarried, of course, but there are large amounts of resources out there for those with children in many countries. If I had no moral qualms about using children and keeping them in horrible (although technically legal) conditions, I could save money with a few "dependents" to add to my taxes.

Single and childless is a group that kinda gets screwed over. Medicaid is a big one where that occurs. (in states that didn't expand medicaid under the ACA provisions.)
Logged

redwallzyl

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Back to work Congress!
« Reply #16122 on: January 02, 2018, 05:31:47 pm »

I always hate it when people complain about the poor spending money on "luxuries" and if they didn't do that they would be less poor. Their are so many reasons that's a horrible way to think.
Logged

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Back to work Congress!
« Reply #16123 on: January 02, 2018, 06:15:42 pm »

Not in the USA.  We get a break on taxes, but that's it.  In every other possible way, it's an overwhelming burden that far outweighs that tax credit.  I think I get 3 or 4 thousand more than my comparatively carefree childless friends every year on my tax return.  But...

Quote from: USDA
Based on the most recent data from the Consumer Expenditures Survey, in 2015, a family will spend approximately $12,980 annually per child in a middle-income ($59,200-$107,400), two-child, married-couple family. Middle-income, married-couple parents of a child born in 2015 may expect to spend $233,610 ($284,570 if projected inflation costs are factored in*) for food, shelter, and other necessities to raise a child through age 17. This does not include the cost of a college education.

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child

This doesn't appear to include the hospital fees associated with childbirth, which are drastic and rising quickly.  Employers that offer maternal leave typically make it unpaid.  That alone is a gigantic pit to fall into.  And I never found any benefits besides the tax return to offset this.  We got TANF, which gave us a small amount of money to spend on specific staple food items, and IIRC was only offered to parents with infant or toddler age children.  When we sought other benefits, a lady at the welfare office literally told my wife that I needed to drop out of school and get a 2nd job.

And there are so many things that effect prosperity, but cannot be assigned a dollar amount.

Few people get more than two weeks vacation and a couple sick days per year, and I've never heard of any employer in the USA that lets you take time to care for your kids without using that up.  Your sick days have to cover you AND your kid.  Your vacation days have to cover their school events and appointments.  You basically don't get actual vacation as a parent.  There's compounding effects here from lost opportunity, burnout, and lack of self care.  Because employers, who have near unmitigated power over our lives in this country, offer parents and non-parents exactly the same benefits.  To an employer, that child doesn't exist, and you are expected to function as an employee exactly the same as someone who is childless.  I have struggled through being at work sick for weeks SO MANY TIMES because I had no time left to spend on going home and getting better, and all that time turns into periods of my life where I accomplish nothing but just getting through the day.

Then there's housing.  The effect of cost difference between 1 bedroom housing and family housing on life choices cannot be overstated.  Two full-time incomes at a decent entry-level position is just enough to scrape by renting a 3 bedroom place.  Rent will be at least half that income, unless you live in the cheapest, most unsanitary and dangerous slum.  Or driving an hour to work, and putting your kid in atrocious rural schools that will set them up to fail at life.  That means you're faced with a choice between both parents working and desperately juggling work and parenting.  Or one parent basically sacrificing themselves to carry the family on their backs, while barely getting to be a part of their family's lives. 

Meanwhile, a childless couple can rent a 1 bedroom place off one of their incomes.   Or each work a part time job.  Or both work full time and actually save money.  Not live paycheck to paycheck.  Put in their hours, then come home and chill.  Do whatever they want.  Take actual time off for themselves.  Pursue life opportunities.  Maintain social lives.  Take care of themselves.


I always hate it when people complain about the poor spending money on "luxuries" and if they didn't do that they would be less poor. Their are so many reasons that's a horrible way to think.

USA is a country where luxuries are cheap and necessities are expensive.  A poor person can easily find ways to save and find various opportunities (sales, giveaways, etc) to get their hands on nice consumer items.  And if they gave it all back, it would make a pitifully negligible difference in their ability to support themselves.  A nice smartphone that cost half a months rent that is only replaced every 2-3 years is obviously not making a difference in that person's ability to afford rent.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2018, 06:20:56 pm by SalmonGod »
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Dunamisdeos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Duggin was the hero we needed.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Back to work Congress!
« Reply #16124 on: January 02, 2018, 06:57:32 pm »

As a legit poor person in the U.S with a kid where both parents work full-time, all of that is 100% true for us. We work 2 full-time jobs to live paycheck to paycheck. And we are not entry-level. I am a manager of 10/20-ish people, my wife is a nurse. I live in a country where access to a 800$ smartphone is almost guaranteed, and also my wife saves lives at work while needing state assistance to buy food for our kid.

Except in our area it's 2-bedroom, and we could barely scrape by if we had a one-bedroom with no kid unless we wanted to live in a place that has weekly shootouts. We lived this when my wife was fired for being pregnant.
Logged
FACT I: Post note art is best art.
FACT II: Dunamisdeos is a forum-certified wordsmith.
FACT III: "All life begins with Post-it notes and ends with Post-it notes. This is the truth! This is my belief!...At least for now."
FACT IV: SPEECHO THE TRUSTWORM IS YOUR FRIEND or BEHOLD: THE FRUIT ENGINE 3.0
Pages: 1 ... 1073 1074 [1075] 1076 1077 ... 3606