Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Then what do you propose?

[SalmonGod]

Then what do you propose?

I think we need to build the communications infrastructure to enable society to organize itself more dynamically and informally, instead of strictly adhering to these obsolete algorithms for centralization of authority and resources that were developed in a completely different technological era.

[Leafsnail]

What are squatter's rights like in America?  That's one way to solve it, meaning that people have to live in their houses at least some of the time in order to continue claiming ownership of it.

[RedKing]

What are squatter's rights like in America?  That's one way to solve it, meaning that people have to live in their houses at least some of the time in order to continue claiming ownership of it.

More or less non-existent. Though there has been a rise in the incidents of people squatting their own houses after the bank forecloses.

[Nadaka]

What are squatter's rights like in America?  That's one way to solve it, meaning that people have to live in their houses at least some of the time in order to continue claiming ownership of it.

More or less non-existent. Though there has been a rise in the incidents of people squatting their own houses after the bank forecloses.

That isn't entirely true, you are no longer allowed to burn the property down with them still inside.

[Lagslayer]

You seem to think these issues are simpler than they actually are.

First thing first: security is expensive and difficult. No matter what you are doing, whatever you are protecting, good security is hard to get. Furthermore, everything is global now. The economy, politics, all of it global. You can't have everything be global without a global power and global security. If it wasn't the US, it would have to be someone else (possibly a lot worse), and they would have to fork up the money. No, the world isn't just going to magically start getting along. No, giving free stuff to all the dictatorship run third world countries (or first world, for that matter) is not going to make them stop being dictatorships.

On a related note, the chart about population and prison population. The US is very diverse. As previously explained, different groups of people don't always get along. So many different groups of people in one place creates a lot of social pressure. Also, correlation does not equal causation. The different racial groups also fall along similar income lines. Perhaps poor people are more inclined to crime, and various groups have more poor per capita than others. Or maybe race is a bigger factor than most people want to admit.

Poverty is defined differently in each country. In most countries, it means out on the street (or rather, muddy diseased ditch) without any food or shelter of any kind. In the US, you can own a house and have more food than you can eat and still be "in poverty". Not that they necessarily have it good, but perspective is just as important as the statistics.

Percentage of millionaires graph: unavoidable. Charisma is how you rise to power anyways, either economic or political. Of course the charismatic people in government are more likely to be rich, too.

Housing graph: depending on how it's justified, it may be understandable. If it is argued that giving these houses away for free because they were not bought would set a bad precedent, it would warrant some sympathy. Let's assume the public figures this out, and just refuses to buy anything. Well, nobody is buying it, so they cut costs, or eventually make it free. People start not buying anything until it becomes free. Suddenly, there's no more incentive to produce, and nobody gets anything. Now nobody is making new houses. Theoretically, a system could replace this. This system would start building new houses only once they are ordered. The downside of not having a buffer of supplies is that you have to wait longer to get the stuff you want. No more just going out and buying something, you have to order it, have it made, and then shipped before you can get it. And on the issue of making houses, it tends to take a while. How would you feel if you paid $100k for a house, and next week, they started giving them out for free? But again, this is a hypothetical situation I'm commenting on. As for homeless people living in these houses, if they are going to be sold eventually, the people living there need to be responsible for any wear, tear, and damages they might cause to it. Otherwise they are, in fact, getting paid to live in a house they don't own, or costing the people who have to pay the additional upkeep.

On wages, it could it could theoretically be defended if prices also came down. They are not. Not sure how much of that productivity is because of people working harder or because of better machines (can't read the dates at the bottom).

Charity is not about getting something in return, and you still have to follow the rules.

Not that all the rules are necessarily good, but just saying "f*** these rules, but all those other rules are ok" will end very badly. It means the rules effectively mean nothing, that they take a backseat to the whims of whoever holds power. This precedent means you can punish anyone for anything, any time you want. The game simply becomes "who can get on the dictator's good side". Again, this doesn't necessarily mean that you should never go outside the system to take it down, but it should never, ever be taken lightly. This is a very serious issue at the heart of every society, ever.

Corporations may be owned by many people, but that doesn't change the fact that they are not government owned. They are certainly not public property.




Did I miss anything? Bah, so many posts before I was done, but I'm posting this anyways.

[kaenneth]

The problem with the fact that we have both excessive Homelessness and excessive Empty Houses at the same time in the US is that some assholes will build a meth lab, rip out the metal plumbing, and horde 20 dogs in a bedroom.

[Josephus]

That's a universal law of nature. Nature abhors a vacuum, and therefore whenever she sees an empty space she endeavours to fill it with meth labs.

[SalmonGod]

That big JPMorgan fuck-up may eventually result in losses amounting to 9 Billion.

[Osmosis Jones]

That's a universal law of nature. Nature abhors a vacuum, and therefore whenever she sees an empty space she endeavours to fill it with meth labs.

Congratulations. You just made me laugh out loud. I really shouldn't read these in the office.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's a universal law of nature. Nature abhors a vacuum, and therefore whenever she sees an empty space she endeavours to fill it with meth labs.

So Space is full of meth lab? No wonder NASA had such a hard time getting to the moon.

[Mr. Palau]

That big JPMorgan fuck-up may eventually result in losses amounting to 9 Billion.

While  worrying, especially given the recent finiancial crisis, this is not a threat to JPMorgan. They have very, very large capitial reserves. What they did, was a legitimate hedge. It was a dumb hedge, but it was a hedge non the less. They are just going to have almost no profit this quarter. A legitimate consquence of stupid decisions.

[SalmonGod]

That's a universal law of nature. Nature abhors a vacuum, and therefore whenever she sees an empty space she endeavours to fill it with meth labs.

So Space is full of meth lab? No wonder NASA had such a hard time getting to the moon.

Are stars burning meth labs that eventually explode in a supernova?  Are black holes areas of space that reached a critical mass of addiction, and began desperately sucking in all surrounding meth lab?

[Zangi]

That big JPMorgan fuck-up may eventually result in losses amounting to 9 Billion.

While  worrying, especially given the recent finiancial crisis, this is not a threat to JPMorgan. They have very, very large capitial reserves. What they did, was a legitimate hedge. It was a dumb hedge, but it was a hedge non the less. They are just going to have almost no profit this quarter. A legitimate consquence of stupid decisions.

It is, but considering that the government, in extension every taxpaying US citizen, will throw money at a bank if it digs itself into a deep hole... also known as 'too big to fail'... well, you get the idea don't you?

Though, when you think of it... its like welfare, but with more money thrown at less people...

[kaijyuu]

You know, if we're going to stick with capitalism, we should probably try to ensure no individual economic entity becomes "too big to fail." Banks aren't the only thing. Imagine if Facebook went down for whatever reason; there's a hell of a lot of stuff out there that would die along with it.