SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
turgid (4318)
I read an interesting article called Making a Living (The history of what we call work) which is a discussion of a book called Work: A Deep History. From the Stone Age to the Age of Robots, by South African anthropologist James Suzman.
It was particularly interesting because it delves into Keynesian economics and discusses the transition of human societies from hunter-gatherers to agrarian and then industrial, finally dealing with current day issues of automation, the growing disparity between well-paid and poorly-paid jobs, wealth inequality, environmental issues and the need for perpetual economic growth.
TL;DR: We have been conditioned to confuse wants and needs, keeping up with the Joneses is the source of many of our problems, and we'd do well to work a bit less and party a bit more.
They say that no one ever says they wished they worked more/harder on their death bed. I'm not so sure. I can see myself on mine wishing I'd achieved more. I don't necessarily mean the acquisition of material possessions, and I don't mean ticking off a bucket list, I just mean doing cool new stuff, learning, discovering and so on.
Don't get me wrong, I do value many material possessions. I value being warm and dry with somewhere safe to sleep, to have plenty of food and to have my medical needs met. I value having cool stuff to do things with. I'm sitting in a room just now with 10 computers of my own (11 if you count my old ZX-81). We have two good cars, which are very useful and a pleasure to drive. I wish I had a bigger brain so I could do more cool stuff...
What I got from that article was that there are a lot of people in the world who need to work to be fulfilled. That doesn't mean working themselves into poor health or an early grave and it doesn't mean working in order to acquire enormous amounts of material wealth but to achieve things, to do meaningful things, to discover new things, to heal the sick and so on.
We need Star Trek now more than ever. We need to redirect more of this effort and more of these resources to science and exploration. We'll all benefit, including materially, but most of all we'll become more fulfilled. Let's not suffocate ourselves on this rock in the pursuit of social status.
By the way, I spent the last two weekends planting trees, scattering seeds and planting saplings. I planted over 100 saplings (lodge pole pine, silver birch, sitka spruce). I've scattered thousands of seeds (rowan, juniper, larch). I have some oak and chestnut saplings from last autumn's seeds that need to be transplanted soon too. They'll need protectors to stop the deer eating them (again).
Next year, after the site has been cleared, I'm going to buy a few hundred saplings of other species to plant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 17 2021, @04:29PM (37 children)
sure, if the site in question looks like a candidate for a superfund toxic site style cleanup, but just clean up any human crap and just rewild it.
Also, softwood trees are the shittiest onesto combat climate change. Sure, hardwoods take longer to grow, but they're also less prone to quickly going up in smoke fueled by their higher resin content, they're not as good wrt recovering co2 in the first place, and they acidify the ground around them.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by turgid on Sunday October 17 2021, @05:15PM (36 children)
I need to clear the site so I can build my new house. Softwood trees are there as a fast-growing wind-break and a potential future source of fire wood. There descendants of the trees my grandfather planted 50 years ago. There's a very strong west wind in these parts. I've got a bit list of other species I'm going to plant later. I have 20 oaks grown from acorns that I'll be planting soon. They might last 800 years.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday October 17 2021, @05:34PM (1 child)
Sounds like a plan... a quite nice plan. Thumbs up!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by turgid on Monday October 18 2021, @07:19AM
Thanks.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @01:31AM (28 children)
When 800 years old, you reach… look as good, you will not!
In our economy, work (a job) is more like indentured servitude. No debt should be life long
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday October 18 2021, @07:22AM (27 children)
Yes. It would be great if we could get to the point that people have a bit more financial security so that they're not living pay cheque to pay cheque. The cost of housing is far too high nowadays. There has been rampant inflation of property prices to the point that ordinary people struggle to put a roof over their own heads. Something's badly wrong.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @02:33PM (26 children)
Gotta kill interest, that's where the thievery is.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @05:26PM (25 children)
Nonsense. Loaning money or assets is risky. If you're not getting more back than you lent out, then you're losing money. Should we mandate by law that you work for less than it costs you to work? That's a different sort of theft.
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @06:14PM (22 children)
:-) knew you would show up
Not it's not, you get bailed out every time someone defaults, with interest. You want free money for nothing
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @07:28PM (12 children)
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @08:56PM (11 children)
:-) It might be, if not for the bailouts.. Now it's pure guaranteed profit. You can charge a small fee for the paperwork. That's all you are entitled too. Interest is theft, extortion, blackmail all rolled into one.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:04AM (10 children)
Then get rid of the bailouts and your complaint goes away.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:53AM (9 children)
After you get rid of the interest too.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:04AM (8 children)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @03:01AM (7 children)
Both are a problem, a drain on the economy. It's why your "debt" is so big, all to pay interest, and baliouts, leaves nothing for infrastructure and social obligations
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @03:07AM
Here's the funny thing.
If a government (because here you're talking about infrastructure and social obligations, not splurging on a new car) wants credit the typical approach is to put some bonds on the market. The details vary on which country is under discussion, but the general approach is an auction. The first purchasers end up with little difference between the coupon and price, while whoever sucks up the slop gets the biggest spread. By your logic (interest ba-a-a-a-ad) nobody should ever be permitted to buy a government bond except at face value.
Now explain to us all in small words why on your home planet anybody buys those bonds.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:18AM (5 children)
Sorry, not interest. The lending of money greatly hastens capital purchases. And interest is the incentive to lend.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:32AM (4 children)
Look for another incentive. Interest is stealing.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:39AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:46AM (2 children)
:-) You already ignore, you just come around to pontificate your usual neo-liberal garbage
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:16AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:19PM
Join our Facebook group, "Khallow's for Usury!" Only a small monthy fee, compounding daily.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @07:37PM (8 children)
Wait, wait, wait.
Fustakrakich wants people with assets ...
.... not to use those assets and enjoy the returns of same ...
... but to lend them out without even so much as a compensatory cut for not having the returns of the exact assets that they would otherwise have put to work?
I'm hearing: fusty hates entrepreneurs, and wants investors to close doors to them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:08AM (7 children)
Then your hearing is faulty.
If you want to claim that interest is the reward for risking your money, then you have to actually bear that risk. What Fusty is saying is "No More Bailouts".
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:57AM (5 children)
The risk can be covered with a refundable bond instead of interest.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:42AM (4 children)
Sorry, I don't buy that. Either you're just inserting interest via the bond mechanism or you don't have something that legitimately covers that risk. As has been noted by other posters, a key risk is opportunity cost - the income you've could have earned by not lending that money or other assets. A refundable bond doesn't cover that.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:55AM (3 children)
Of course not...
You just have to use that money wisely. If there is a default you get no interest, with the bond you have something. Interest is always evil, it devalues the currency
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:19AM (2 children)
By not lending it without interest. I find it remarkable how you just can't get other peoples' interests here. Looks to me like you're just out to destroy lending altogether. As has been repeatedly noted, lending without interest is negative value even with some sort of bond mechanism to partially reduce the risk.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:32AM (1 child)
The Grand Economic Principle that khallow is leaving out, is the increasing marginal futility of arguing with khallow. Yes, there are some yields at the beginning, but the longer a "discussion" with khallow goes on, the less anyone gains from it. Marx predicted much the same, with his prediction of the Diminishing returns on Capital [wikipedia.org], or Capital intensification. Soon, there will be no place for profit, as increasing capitalist competition squeezes out all the greedy bastids, and leaves only the producers, not the job snatchers, to run the place. Happy Striketober!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:17PM
The amusement is worth every minute, even if it just another ant mill. Must be my pheromones
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:27AM
Oh. You're right!
Fusty said: "Gotta kill interest, that's where the thievery is." and not some kind of weasel-worded "No more bailouts!" cop-out. Yup, went right for that bailout jugular there.
No, wait, you're not right. He only tacked on bailouts afterwards, and then saw fit to say: "Not it's not, you get bailed out every time someone defaults, with interest. You want free money for nothing" as if every lender on the planet gets bailouts with their morning newspaper.
Newsflash: they don't. I sure as fuck don't. Now, if you want to bitch about big knobheads getting the bailouts, I'm with you but that is not what fustakrakich said in any west germanic language. He said to kill interest. Not limited cases of interest. Not interest where lenders are too big to fail. Not interest when there's a law backing up the lender. Not interest when lending is unconstrained by risk.
Just interest. Period.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:23AM (1 child)
Just kill the khallow. Nasty syncophants of extortionist lenders, who try to get you to pay off their backhoe for them, in a single job! Bastard ate my deposit, did not show in small claims court, and now I have a lien on both his right and left testicles, though the Baliff informed me this is not collectible, because, ball-less-ness. Khallow never went to college, did not ever study economics, and is an ideological stodge of the Austrian School, of neo-Nazism and Capitalism.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:12AM
Yup.
With the GOP insurrection khallow was beginning to lose it. Real fear finally crept into his privileged life and he couldn't maintain his internet persona all that well. He has regrouped, realized to maintain relevance he had to get some distance from the Q crowd so he admits the pandemic is real (took balls of silly putty) and he had to get the flat-earth-climate-hoax chain off his neck. So he denies any ties to the GOP and their racist crazy Qtards and even admits climate change is real now! Before your jaw hits the floor he has merely shifted from denying the problem exists and now says we'll all die in various ways if we try and fix it. Basically he is an experienced corporate shill. Hope he at least gets paid and isn't a suckered intern doing it for the exposure. Even apk would pity him.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:38AM (4 children)
I respect a person whose planning horizon is in terms of millennium. Godspeed, turgid!
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:23AM (3 children)
Maybe in a couple of hundred years you could drop by and see how they're doing? The only fly in the ointment might be sea level rise. They're only going to be about 25m above current sea level, which might be a problem. Having said that, when I go walking in the hills, I might scatter a few seeds. There are hundreds of square miles of barren hillside here which in millennia past were covered in forest and they need to be rewilded.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:22AM (2 children)
An example from a century ago, or so.
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Planted-Hope-Grew-Happiness/dp/999031005X [amazon.com]
Must be a free source version somewhere?
http://forestfloor.co.nz/ff/the_man_who_planted_hope.htm [forestfloor.co.nz]
(Psst! Don't tell khallow! Nobody made any money off of this!)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @11:11AM (1 child)
Elzeard Bouffier is a myth. Ignant moran.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:00AM
And Runaway1956 is the alias of a criminal Capitol rioter wannabe. Your point? It is you who are the ignorant moron, Runnie! You see partisanship and controversy where there is none. Go back to the Runway Pundit.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday October 17 2021, @05:32PM (4 children)
Over this covid period, i've been working my ass off but also have accumulated a fair amount of money in the bank.
We're buying less and thinking more about what we buy: do we really need this, etc.
We packed a large amount of veggies from our garden into the freezer and pickled in jars so when the high prices of food hit this winter, we'll have a buffer.
We spread Christmas purchases out through the year so we don't get a credit card hit all at one time and have basically paid off our credit card, even after spending money expanding the number of our garden boxes.
We've also seen people spending money like it was water throughout these past 22ish months even with all the uncertainty and craziness and that is just nuts. Meanwhile online, i see people spending over $1000 for a PS5. NUTS!!!
People need to start thinking simpler and who cares about the Joneses.
My wife and i hope to retire at 60 without a problem and be able to enjoy our 'old age' with our son in simple comfort. Simple to me is much better than having all the newest greatest and working past 65.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 17 2021, @08:10PM (2 children)
What you do not spend now, hyperinflation will eat up in a year or two.
Ask the ex-Soviets what happened to their "money in the bank".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @03:40AM (1 child)
Well, first it went to Cyprus. Then Greece went into receivership to pay it back, through a branch in London, I think. Don't fuck with the Russian mob
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @05:11PM
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday October 18 2021, @07:27AM
I've been working very hard too, and I've had some very lucky career breaks, starting just before COVID came along. So far I've managed to take advantage of remote working to focus more intently on my work to be more productive, as well as having had opportunities to demonstrate more skills (for example, now assuming PHB duties). My wife has been able to give up work. She had long COVID last year, amongst other problems, so she really needed to. She was off work for 10 weeks and really suffered. Some of her colleagues lost family members to COVID and others came really close to death. I grew potatoes this year. That was very rewarding. I was able to share them with the neighbours. We've still got quite a stash that should see us another couple of months at least.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 17 2021, @05:38PM (48 children)
The Federation of Star Trek was a massive industrial power. For example, at the end of one of the movies where Kirk blows up his Enterprise, they're already well into making the next Enterprise (just in time for the next movie, no doubt). So here we have some random Federation starbase putting together a high precision, combat-ready starship on the spur of the moment.
Science and exploration were important, but don't forget the industry!
Second, concerning post-scarcity, people keep forgetting that scarcity rears its ugly head inevitably once you consume enough resources. For example, feeding eight billion people might not tax a post-scarcity economy. Delivering a right to a clean environment for all eight billion people sure can especially if one has to dial back the post-scarcity industry in order to make that happen.
Finally, there's already massive resources being dumped into science and exploration. What's missing is some common sense. We don't need a multibillion per year space exploration hobby where most of the resources go into making exotic spacecraft rather than in exploring.
There's quite a few spacecraft of the past half century that could be replicated numerous times and sent to similar destinations in the Solar System - such as my personal example of the Mars Exploration Rovers which for the cost of the subsequent Curiosity mission have about 6-8 rovers made, launched to, and deployed on Mars before Curiosity was even launched. Sure, the better instruments on Curiosity have some value, but I think there's more value in exploring more sites than in bringing fancier gear.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 17 2021, @11:35PM (13 children)
We have scarcity because right wingers like you desperately want the scarcity to exist. Your only objective is to exploit the working class as much as possible. To use the OP's analogy, you right wingers are the Ferengi.
Just like the Ferengi, you're not interested in scientific and technological progress that would raise the quality of life, reduce scarcity, and improve environmental conditions. Instead, you defend rent-seeking parasites who actively oppose scientific and technological advancements. A fine example is the fossil fuel industry, which should become obsolete as new technology develops and matures. Instead of allowing scientific progress to proceed, the fossil fuel industry engages in misinformation to protect a dying business model and oppose newer and better technologies.
We need less right wing rent-seeking parasites. We need to move past the lie that people are poor because they haven't worked hard enough, when the wealthiest members of our society tend to either inherit their wealth or build it through the exploitation of others. Left to your own devices, right wing psychopaths like you will cut corners with things like safety in factories, all the while demanding workers put in more labor for less pay. You right wingers are sick individuals, happy to let others languish in scarcity and work in dangerous conditions, all so you can line your pockets with more money.
There's a reason that Starfleet officers are warned about the Ferengi when they're at the Academy.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @12:29AM
Surprise: progress in surveillance, propaganda, and censorship tech does not raise the quality of life of commoners.
Lefties fighting tooth and nail to destroy what material technology we still have, while giving off silly mouth noises about "progress", are puke-inducing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @02:55AM (11 children)
That's a cute fairy tale. But we live in the real world. The problems are that the Ferengi just like everyone else are deeply interested in scientific and technological progress. They just have emphases that you disagree with. And what rent-seeking parasites am I defending again? Certainly not the businesses selling subsidized renewable power systems, right? As to the new and maturing technologies that are failing to replace fossil fuels? They need to mature longer. No need to blame fantasy conspiracies when the explanation is staring you in the face.
So what? Lots of people demand stuff. We don't care unless it's something we agree with.
What's ignored throughout this clueless diatribe is that scarcity rules here. It's not Ferengi holding you back, it's finite resources and time. Fix that first.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @03:28AM (10 children)
The scarcity is artificial. It exists because the wealthy hoard far more than they need or could ever hope to use. It's even worse because the wealthy often contribute little to nothing of value, rarely actually earning their wealth. But you'll conveniently ignore that and repeat some more right wing propaganda to me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @03:57AM (9 children)
Then where's the evidence?
There's three problems here. First, the wealthy typically don't hoard, they invest. That's a very different thing. Second, that you have a greatly exaggerated idea of what the wealthy "hoard". The non-wealthy could hoard a lot too, if they choose to save rather than spend. Because they don't so save, the wealth of the wealthy just isn't going to go far with them. They'll get it, spend it, and be back to their present state. Third, I bet those wealthy have a far different opinion of what they need or can do with that wealth. My take is that their opinion should matter more than yours does because it's their wealth not yours.
To who? How are we measuring "contributions"?
In other words, a pre-baked excuse not to listen.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @06:17PM (8 children)
Wow, gotta love that wall of propaganda. Typical content-free khallow shilling it up for the rich.
"In other words, a pre-baked excuse not to listen."
My my my, khallow sure is getting too fat for his britches. Anyone ever had a productive discussion with him? Or just more "conveniently ignore that and repeat some more right wing propaganda to me?"
Let's see:
- poor people don't save enough
- wealthy aren't hoarding, they're INVESTING
- wealthy people are BETTER
Yup, covered the standard rightwing asshole points there. THAAAAAAAANKS PAL!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @07:39PM
What's I'm not seeing in this whinefest is an actual counterargument.
So did you have one, or did you just want to snivel about how mean khallow is for not agreeing with you? Because I'm pretty sure that's not getting you laid (although I could be wrong ...)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @07:43PM (6 children)
Sounds like I'm not the reason this discussion is unproductive! But maybe we'll have better luck next time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @08:52PM (5 children)
Haha nice attempt to shift the blame, typical rightwing tactic when people toss out your propaganda. There is no point engaging the bushit rightwingers yoss around, there is a never ending supply they can dredge up. Poor rightwing trolls, such persecuted martyrs /s If only they valued education!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @10:04PM (4 children)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:24AM (3 children)
You are the antithesis of rational you parasite, go evangelize elsewhere, maybe spitshine Bezos' shoes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:03PM (2 children)
Because?
I've seen this movie before. A noble, brave AC got irrationally put down by the mean ole khallow sometime in the murky, vague past. He can't really put down where it happened. But he knows with absolute certainty that mean ole khallow showed his colors and they were irrational. So no use talking to mean ole khallow because he's just not going to listen ever.
That's why you're talking now as if I'm the only person on the internets. Because I won't listen! And of course, doing so AC to show your bravery and such.
OTOH, I have this theory that you're an anonymous coward for whom 1984-style doublespeak and two minute hating is as close as you'll get to rational discourse. This weak-ass taunting is it - there's nothing more to you.
What's your true colors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:15PM (1 child)
Cracks me up you think you are rational. You lurch from assumption to assumption and assume everyone else is wrong. There is no point arguing with a True Believer that ignores facts in favor of propaganda sound bites. No amount of claiming the rational high ground will make it so.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:32PM
Speaking of assumptions, we have two here: "True Believer" and "there is no point". I cured [soylentnews.org] a flat Earther a little while back. After the day of that post, "energeian planes" only got mentioned sincerely one more time about a week later.
You just have to know how to talk to them. Now, I grant that I probably don't know how to talk to you yet, but I'm working on it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @01:41AM (32 children)
Please note, industrial power, not financial power. In fact, no finance at all. Eliminate the the finance, and scarcity (and most of the pollution) goes... *poof*, none at all. Everything you need, created by industrial power.
You need scarcity so you can collect interest, so you can have what others can't. As far as resources go, we have hardly scratched the surface, about 5 miles deep, only another 3995 more to go
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @01:58AM (31 children)
Enter the fantasy science fiction of Star Trek. Sorry, you've long shown you don't have a clue about economics.
Cool story bro. Let's cast some Ferengi and start filming! I assume they'll be the villains greedily stopping the disassembly of Earth for its plentiful resources, saving billions of human lives in the process? Very diabolical of them!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @03:23AM (30 children)
:-) Sure I do. I just don't play along with your neo-liberal voodoo.
Ferengi? Them? Look in the mirror... other than that, what do they have to do with the price of rice?
Eh, pretty sure you completely misread
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 18 2021, @03:58AM (18 children)
If nobody is growing rice, no one eats rice. About one growing season after you introduce your post scarcity economy, everyone starts going hungry, and we're back at scarcity. Why was the Soviet such a bad economic system again? Weren't they post scarcity? Everybody does what they can, everybody takes what they need, which meant that housewives lined up for blocks to get a meager ration of rice, and the next day they lined up for blocks to get another meager ration of potatoes, etc ad nauseum. Meanwhile, the man of the house was in another line to get some vodka.
But, you keep telling your fairy tales. The children like your stories. Disney wants to buy the rights.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @05:21AM (17 children)
The Soviet "economy" was a kleptocracy. The state took the farmers produce and left it to rot in a silo, or even in the field. That's what made the shortages, and leave it to you to make a strawman out of "post scarcity", the world has been post scarcity since the end of WW2 (anywhere you can deliver ordnance, you can deliver rice), but not post gluttony. That achievement can be your fairy tale, huh?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 18 2021, @06:06AM (16 children)
Probably happened throughout the Soviet history, but you're describing one relatively short incident (three years?) when Stalin punished a state he resented. That is, he quite literally destroyed food crops, and intentionally starved millions of people to death. If/when it happened in later years, it was probably just due to ineptitude, without genocidal overtones. Similar things happen in other nations and states without any genocide intended.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @06:18AM (15 children)
Proving that scarcity is created intentionally, not necessarily for genocide, but for simple profit, or any other punitive reasoning that can be dreamed up. Almost always more food is grown than can be consumed, maybe half makes it to market
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 18 2021, @06:22AM (14 children)
Cute. You take one instance of intentional scarcity, and use it to "prove" that all scarcity is artificial. You have a mind like a steel trap - lodged between a couple of tree roots, and rusted into a useless heap, stubbornly holding a leg bone.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @02:39PM (13 children)
That's not the only instance, it is one example of the general process. Scarcity is artificial, people holding out for a better price, it's perfectly natural behavior. Food is thrown away before it is given to the hungry all the time all around the world. The system is sociopathic, for profit
You sure get excited over nothing
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @02:51PM (12 children)
You're wasting our time. Runaway got this one right.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @03:00PM (9 children)
Heh, sociopaths unite.. coming from you, that almost means something, but not really. You his assistant, or boss?
Here's another example of a common practice [live935.com] you apparently deny
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @03:23PM (8 children)
Oh dear, clueless name calling! We're not sociopaths just because we don't fall for your bullshit.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @03:56PM (7 children)
:-) Why do you say that? It's a simple fact. Other people have noticed. Wear the badge proudly!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @04:06PM (6 children)
Because words mean things. Sociopath != doesn't agree with fusty.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @04:26PM (5 children)
:-) You're trying to pretend I'm the only one. But I know you have another
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @04:30PM
Only one what?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @04:39PM (3 children)
To be fair he is either a sociopath or an idiot. Possibly both.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:21AM (2 children)
khallow is not an idiot. Possibly a sociopath, but there's not much evidence for that. What he is, is a devoted feudalist. He honestly believes that the rich and powerful are intrinsically better than the peasants. That the Aristocracy have a God-given right to rule and to their position at the top of society. Any attempt to change things for the better for the peasantry is an attack on the Liege he has sworn fealty to.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:24AM
If only the peasants of SoylentNews would spend as much time thinking up good arguments as they do spinning fantasies about each other!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:16AM
Ok fine. He is an inhumane idiot. Better? He is not incapable of intelligence, he just chooses another path.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday October 18 2021, @10:19PM (1 child)
Not even gonna comment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @11:12AM
You shouldn't comment. Ignant moran.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @04:00AM (10 children)
Protip: don't write stupid, ignorant tripe if you don't want to be "completely misread". This is far from the first post where you've blathered about finance, ursury, QE, and a number of other things you clearly don't have an inkling about.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @04:09AM (3 children)
:-) Well, Now I'm sure you misread... Just more neo-liberal hand waving
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @06:00AM (2 children)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @06:11AM (1 child)
It's built in, self evident, but it doesn't matter, it's a wasted effort with you
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @02:52PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @12:49PM (5 children)
Thing is, when finance speculations are more profitable than industrial enterprise, industry is left to rot. No one wants to sink capital into making a better mousetrap for uncertain return sometime much later, subject to all the vagaries of regulatory capture, when they are encouraged to game the system for immediate profit. From the printing press directly to pocket, and let the stupid stubborn leftover industrialists and stupider youtube-watching populace to pay for it through inflation!
Look around yourself and observe the system at work, and the destruction it already has wrought.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @02:49PM (4 children)
I disagree because you've already said why that isn't true.
There's a lot more "leftover industrialists and stupider youtube-watching population" than there are profitable finance speculators. So there's a large portion of the population for which financial speculation is not more profitable.
Sorry, I don't see the alleged post-scarcity economy allegedly hidden by this finance. The problem is simply that the technology for post-scarcity just isn't there for most goods. Sure, things like distributing music or words is there. We're post-scarcity for that. But not almost physical goods like food, shelter, industry, etc. Get past water and electricity, and you're in the usual scarcity model.
I think it's cargo cult-style magic thinking to decide that if we treat the modern world as a post-scarcity economy, it'll somehow become a post-scarcity economy. Sorry, it's going to require a lot more work to make that happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @05:24PM (3 children)
You utterly missed the point.
Any "post-scarcity" is not a thing you now should concern yourself about; you should be concerned about saving your arse from the coming excitement of New Dark Ages.
It is stupid to argue of ways to heaven when everything is going to hell.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @06:14PM (2 children)
As I've noted [soylentnews.org] before, I think the age coming is not a new dark age, but the first global golden age for humanity. Developed world societies have fixed (at least partially) a huge list of things we've considered problems for thousands of years - wars, pollution, poverty, habitat destruction, population growth, mass education, global communication, feeding the world, and authoritarian clowns telling you what to do - just to name a few examples that popped up back then.
You can't fix what you don't understand. You can't understand what you refuse to see.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @11:03PM (1 child)
What I see is death throes very similar to the last years of Soviet Union. You however are free to imagine any Golden Ages you want, right until the end.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:08AM
Based on what? In my link, for a glaring counterexample, we have a huge increase in global wages such that roughly two thirds of humanity saw a 30% or greater increase in wages after counting for inflation and cost of living. Even the US continued to see an increase in wages and benefits, tracking productivity pretty well.
I think that's a big part of the problem in this discussion. People are seeing the end of the world when it's just not there.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:42PM
From TFA:
I think the point is that there are different kinds of scarcity, and many of them are artificial. For example, the artificial restriction in the supply of diamonds (propaganda, marketing and monopolies), things like avarice and keeping up with the Joneses (which lead people to expend wasted effort on unnecessary acquisitions), monopolies due to the abuse of markets, artificial scarcity of ideas ("Imaginary Property" laws such as patents and copyrights that are abused to keep small players and individuals out of markets) and so on.
My point is that we as a species are wasting too much time, energy, money and resources in general chasing after these artificially scares and ultimately useless things. We could put ourselves to much better use, and be much more prosperous in a broader sense, and fulfilled, if we did so.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 17 2021, @08:51PM (40 children)
I think you mean over-paid and poorly-paid jobs? There's little middle ground, it's fiscal policy that created the inequality and it's fiscal policy that will fund the "sustainable economy". It's what the layman may call "theft" - you will own nothing and you will be happy! [strangesounds.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 17 2021, @10:58PM (39 children)
How do you support correct fiscal policy will create equality? Reveal your secrets, and you could be remembered as the AC that saved capitalism.
Is it also fiscal policy that is preventing employers from paying more when even the invisible hand is demanding that they pay more?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @12:05AM (38 children)
I was responding to a claim about "the growing disparity", not proposing a socialist utopia. Wage stagnation was a result of policy [epi.org] and inflation is a fiscal policy [tradingeconomics.com] (Dodd Frank Act limiting bank lending was partially repealed in 2018).
Consider what historically happened with inflationary policy when supply side shocks shifted the Phillips Curve. [economicshelp.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @02:46AM (37 children)
I also see that they're comparing wages not wages and benefits to productivity. When you do the latter, you get a pretty good correlation with productivity. Notice that they mention "wages and benefits" finally around graph 5, so they're aware of those things, but choose not to mention them. Or dishonestly tracing minimum wage with "productivity" (productivity of all work) while ignoring that minimum wage jobs are traditionally not productive jobs.
While inflation is a financial policy. It's not finance that drives it. It's obligations well in excess of ability to deliver. The likely way that will be solved is by inflating currency while simultaneously holding down entitlement spending so that it doesn't track that inflation.
I suggest as an alternative a reduction in the benefits provided by public pensions, health care, etc so that spending matches benefits. Then there's no need for inflation as the indirect copout.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @05:39AM (1 child)
Fuck yourself with a rusty shovel shill.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @06:07AM
Use your brain for once. Notice how this article didn't even mention "wages and benefits" until they presented a graph that supported their argument. That's exactly what propaganda does by definition - providing slanted arguments that support only their message and hiding data that doesn't.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @10:10AM (27 children)
Did you read it?
Traditionally "minimum wage" jobs were under the whip-hand; from pyramid builders to cotton pickers - "not productive"!
You're seriously attempting to refute the business cycle and the role of credit inflation?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @03:06PM (26 children)
Why ask when I showed that I had indeed read the article? Is there supposed to be some point to that rhetorical question?
Pyramid builders may have been the minimum wagers of the ancient Egyptian world, but they got paid. And I think it's very broken to compare slaves to job holders. The latter can and routinely does switch jobs or even just not work at all. This is broken thinking. Plsfix.
The business cycle doesn't magically generate net inflation. Sure, there are parts of the cycle that are traditionally inflationary (particularly the late boom stage), but there are also parts that are traditionally deflationary (such as the early recession stage). And credit inflation is just a mechanism for generating inflation. You still have to deal with the "why".
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Monday October 18 2021, @03:40PM (1 child)
:-) you have a well known history of not reading links...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @04:29PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @03:54PM (23 children)
The point was that points you raised were indeed mentioned in the linked article.
Serfs weren't slaves, neither were workers forced to shop at company stores. [wikipedia.org] When a worker cannot afford to quit they have no bargaining power. It's one thing for the worker to voluntarily take on a mortgage and put himself in that position but today's low paid workers frequently find themselves deprived social mobility opportunities due to inflated housing costs and wage stagnation. Is the predicament in the latter case voluntary?
The "why" is low interest rates which is also the "why" for the trickle-up effects of Monetaryism. If raising rates is a policy tool, what does the yield curve inversion actually signal other than a correction to over-expansion of credit?
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @04:28PM (22 children)
Acknowledging that you are dishonest doesn't make you less dishonest. I find it remarkable how you can't be bothered to address the problems I noted when I read the article in question! Perhaps you ought to read that article!
First, neither were the examples you gave. Second, this is irrelevant to anything we're discussing here. I think it's telling that these red herring are what you choose to talk about.
Sorry, those questions are hows. They are mechanisms/tools by which inflation can be enabled. They aren't whys.
There are two whys: 1) to extract wealth from people with fixed assets, and 2) to reduce dollar-valued obligations that aren't tied well to inflation.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @05:23PM (21 children)
Two of the points you raised were mentioned in the article, I even quoted them for you.
No it isn't, we're discussing wealth disparity due to the stagnation of wages against a backdrop of low interest rates that has inflated property prices beyond affordability for the low paid. As slate [slate.com] put it:
These aren't causative, they're effects. Causation is expansion of the money supply which Post-Keynesians would tell you is a result of the market demand for credit. IOW, Friedman's neo-liberalism posthumously declared "Rothbard was right"!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @07:54PM (16 children)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @08:28PM (15 children)
That's ridiculous, even economists who claim it's reductionist understand credit is the pivot point. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @08:58PM (4 children)
Now do you see why engaging khallow is a pointless exercise? Misinformation and a thin veneer of academic integrity are the window dressing for his faith based world view. Just tell him to fuck off, don't engage his arguments since it only gives him a further platform to spread his narratives.
Here is khallow's entire worldview: bad things are bad, but we can't interfere with business because that would lead to the collapse of civilization and besides future humans will fix everything. Capitalism is that fool's religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @09:32PM (2 children)
I'm not arguing against Capitalism, I'm arguing against Financialization. [ohchr.org] That's the crux of the discussion, Monetarism kept inflation at bay with low interest rates and the resulting credit was invested in assets by the wealthy. This pushed up prices in real estate (especially so after the 2008 crash). Wage stagnation correlates with the end of inflationary blips when Western economies adopted Monetarist policies in the '80s.
Get ready! [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:21AM (1 child)
That is what happens when you allow unfettered capitalism. It is the same pyramid scheme the wealthy have always used, they just dropped the divine mandate portion and have worked hard to trick people into believing capitalism does not devolve into feudalism. Capitalism can stick around, has lots of good qualities, but it isn't THE ANSWER! All the isms have their utility and should be used in the right situations. Healthcare and education? No profit motive should be allowed. Those would be a good start.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:18PM
I keep seeing this idea. UNFETTERED Capitalism. Scary! Scary!
Trouble is, it's bullshit. Capitalism, as in a social structure that allows for individual control of accumulated resources, depends on rules. Everything from tort definitions to contractual analysis, unconscionable terms, through to enforcement of rules of exchange is based on a set of rules founded in how that society deals with matters such as property definition, externalities and all the rest of it.
Unfettered capitalism is not a thing, because the very rules in question are inherently fetters on what can be done with the stock of accumulated value. It's oxymoronic. A contradiction in terms.
But it feeeeeels so truthy, doesn't it?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:04PM
Not my fault, you can't argue. This particular thread isn't even about capitalism in the first place, but interpretations of why inflation happens.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @09:44PM (9 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @10:45PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @11:55PM (3 children)
What incentive to inflate? Central banks have spent decades suppressing inflation, they're not incentivized to do it just out of policy options to prevent it. The Fed has already indicated they're going to let the economy run hot and this was discussed last year. I think you were part of that conversation but it was someone else claiming there was no inflationary pressure to the printer going brrrr. They were wrong.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:57AM (2 children)
Vast and growing public obligations valued in those currencies. There's a huge conflict of interest between government, of which those banks are part, and everyone else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @01:21AM (1 child)
Didn't you hear BlackRock is now "the forth branch of Government"? [bloombergquint.com] They're also buying properties... and Jerome Powell is an investor. Almost as if... policy isn't been set to favor the purchasing power of working people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:28PM
It doesn't matter that much anyway, because one of the key problems that persistent inflation brings is that, while it does reduce the real value of past debts, it makes future debts much more expensive for the government to arrange.
It works like this:
Bobby Government owes 5 zillion. Hey, no problem, print money faster than the pace of transactions justifies, and soon you have a flood of cash and paying off that debt is a snap as tax takes rise and your inflation is an effective partial default on your debt.
Now the investors of the day who bought Bobby's bonds know that inflation took a bite out of their nominal gains, and they're not utter fools, so they see which way the wind is blowing. Bobby now wants to fund his new feed-the-poor initiative because inflation is also really bad for the poor and their household budgets, so he sells another zillion of bonds on the market. This time the investors, having been bitten once, are now shy and offer him a measly 60% of that zillion for the bonds. Why? Because they're pricing inflation in. Bobby's all bummed out by this, so he offers two zillion in bonds! However now the investors don't even offer that much because they didn't want to sink all that much in, they really think that Bobby is signalling a major inflationary push, and they don't want to be taken for a ride.
So now Bobby throws his toys out of his cot and says fuck debt, he'll do the MMT thing and print all the money he wants and aim for full employment. He lets the investors know he doesn't want their silly bond money at their silly rates, and effectively prices himself out of the bond market. He also tells them he'll tax the money out of the market to prevent it from overheating - but full employment first.
Result: inflation runs rampant (because full employment is a mirage of poor definitions and weak verification), Bobby loses the trust of institutional investors, and the mainstreet economy either builds in inflationary expectations (with policies such as index-linked pensions, salaries and prices) or simply bypasses it by trading in other commodities entirely.
In advanced cases of stupid, Bobby tries to enact price freezes, because that always works .... to clobber supply, wipe out the market, and foster a roaring black market. It didn't work for the catholic church after the great plague any more than it worked for Venezuela.
In the special case of the USA there are two additional fun tipping-points. The first is that the USA's ratio of debt to GDP is so big that it's on the threshold of where even the most modest studies pretty much peg the debt as a drag on national productivity. But even if you think that's an illusion because of magical thinking, the USA is at the stage where the dollar's value as a reserve currency is being undermined by the actual policies of the USA government. When the rest of the world turns elsewhere and pinches off a fat log on the USA's doorstep, the relative value of the dollar sinks like a stone, resulting in inflationary shocks across the nation because the price of imports jumps like a frog. The good news is that domestic employment should jump because now american workers are comparatively cheaper - but even so it's a recipe for massive national and international instability.
That, my friends, is one motherfucker of a tipping point. The only bonus is that it would become a lot harder for the US to export enforced compliance to its idiotic domestic moral panics through things like SWIFT regulations.
It's almost as if ... having politicians who pander by promising goodies to their constituents is a bad thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @11:43PM (3 children)
Central banks printed money, the motive for that was covid and inflation is the result. [zerohedge.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:03AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:59AM (1 child)
It's the why of printing the money. [take-profit.org]
Did something happen in the past 2 years necessitating higher spending?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:21AM
Covid necessitated some spending, but not at the levels we see. That's just politicians looking for an opportunity to burn money.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:48AM (3 children)
I now am in a position to review these quotes.
One of the flaws shown here is the characterization of billions of people as "policy choices". It's not someone's policy choice that we have almost eight billion people, most of whom are poor. Global integration was going to happen anyway.
Moving on, it shows the incredible bias of this group of researchers that this is merely characterized as "made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power" and "has adversely affected wages of non–college educated workers". For a glaring example of the flaw, this has benefited more non-college educated workers in China than people in the US. Last I heard, about a hundred million Chinese are directly employed in export-oriented industry and such. Add in secondary industries that work off that generated wealth and the families of the above workers, and you'll easily pass the 320 million of the US benefiting from this policy.
So no, I don't consider this an acknowledgement of the biggest dynamic of the 21st Century, when they're dismissing it as merely a bad policy decision made for some rich people. Nor will policy change make those eight billion people go away.
Going to the first paragraph:
"Slow living standards growth" somehow causes rising income inequality - that's one of their key claims in this article. I already noted a better explanation - labor competition from the developing world. And at no point in that article did they provide any support, data, or graphs for that argument. It's just baldly stated and they move on.
Similarly, the only acknowledgement that they're blowing off a considerable portion of lower class workers' benefits is the statement
"Majority" means they could understating wages and benefits as much as a factor of two! I'll note that in the graph that can be found from this link [soylentnews.org], average total compensation tracks productivity pretty well. As I noted already, the bottom fifth of households aren't the most productive so there's no reason to expect their wages to track a productivity graph that doesn't reflect their actual productivity.
Thus, I stand by my original post. This was just a dishonest attempt to push a narrative with cherry picked statistics and a lot of weaseling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @01:12AM (2 children)
Are they wrong? [businessinsider.com]
It's a report specifically looking at wealth inequality within the US.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:15AM (1 child)
Income inequality. Wealth inequality is even worse a measure since it ignores earning potential, a huge portion of wealth for income-dependent people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:28AM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @12:29AM (6 children)
Can you make a single ethical or moral argument for why income tax should be higher than the tax on capital growth?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @01:31AM (2 children)
One word: Risk.
And if you're investing in a company, they already paid tax on profit before you see a return.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:02AM (1 child)
So why aren't gambling wins taxed as capital gains? Or better yet, why aren't gambling losses tax deductible?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:20AM
Are you a professional? [lasvegasadvisor.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:23PM (2 children)
As to that mildly lower relative rate, I think it's less about risk and more about wanting to encourage longer term investment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:31PM (1 child)
There's also the point that most capital gains comes at the tail end of a process that is already taxed. If you're talking property ownership, there are property taxes, maintenance costs and so on. If you're talking stocks, the company's profits are already taxed, as are the incomes of employees, and quite often sales as well. Basically, you run into a dilemma around double taxation that ends up skewing aggressively anti-investment, which is precisely why lawmakers figured out that the capital gains taxes should not be treated as ordinary income.
But it is an easy target for people who've never studied this stuff because EAT THE RICH!!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:07PM
Often in several ways. For example, the recent uptick in inflation, if it continues, is going to create a lot of phantom capital gains.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @05:36AM (8 children)
I think it would be great to live in a world where noone has to worry about food, water, shelter, etc., but I don't see a practical way to get there without burning everything down first.
How do you propose to end artificial and strategic scarcity? Governments and militaries are too untrusting to ever put down the weapons or make resources available to everyone. The ruling classes do not take kindly to having their benefits infringed upon. Neither they or the middle classes want to be put on the same level as the lower classes, it would be too damaging to their pride, self-image, and societal position. How do you go about convincing the relatively well-off to give up what they have for the benefit of others?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 18 2021, @03:21PM (7 children)
Produce the goods that are so scarce. It's straight-forward in a market economy.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:30PM (6 children)
:-) Let us know when you see one. I have already shown you how merchandise is dumped to keep prices up. Your financial industry cannot survive without creating scarcity.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:56PM (5 children)
Where?
Anyway, my point is that if you make more such merchandise and sell it in said market economy, then well, prices aren't kept up.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:15PM (4 children)
Thus you artificially make the product more scarce, you may have to collude with others in case you don't have a monopoly, but that's how it's done. Keep prices high through scarcity..
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:53PM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:04AM (2 children)
Can't happen when we let the monopoly run the government.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:40AM (1 child)
Unless, of course, the competition competes anyway. I got this worked out. Totally.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:58AM
:-) No you don't...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @01:37PM (10 children)
Yes.
Unless someone else does the working for you.
Want a meal? Someone's cooking that, at some point. Even if it's a factory-assembled MRE, someone's working in that factory.
Want a plate from which to eat it? Someone made that.
And so on, and on, down the line. COVID-19 vaccines didn't spring unbidden from the bark of a tree for everyone; somebody had to make them.
The only question is: who needs to?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @06:22PM (9 children)
You're running into the issue with marketing again. Like the slogan "defund the police" it is just a slogan meant to start a conversation. No one except really dumb or literal people think it means get rid of the police. Same here, no one thinks that no one has to work. The conversation is about lowering the time in a typical work week. The real problem is too many humans view life and the economy as a zero sum game, and others don't care about the efficiency of their business only how much money they can wring out of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @07:44PM (8 children)
So in other words, we do need to work.
As for post-scarcity, wake me when we have as much energy as we want for the asking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18 2021, @08:44PM (7 children)
We could have all the energy we need if we invested heavily in solar. Replies like yours just want to shit on things. Why?
Rhetorical question, since the article asks if we need to work you must simply be a troll that just wants to win against the idea that humans no longer have to work.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:09AM (3 children)
Depends how much that solar costs. I can see the potential for it resulting in cheap enough power, but I also see that hasn't happened yet despite very heavy investments in solar to date.
I think the answer is mild cynicism. After all, we have the better part [medium.com] of a century of bad predictions on this very matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:23AM
A lot! [zerohedge.com]
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:35AM (1 child)
Yes, indeed, after we pay ol' Sol for residuals, intellectual property, and severance for photons, solar energy will probably not even break even. Or, khallow is an idiot.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:09PM
Meanwhile on my planet, solar panels cost money to make and install. It's not free, especially if you're "heavily investing" in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:38AM (2 children)
No. We don't have all the energy we want "for the asking". We have it IF we mine a lot of stuff, AND manufacture a lot of stuff AND install a lot of stuff AND maintain a lot of stuff.
There's a scarcity of solar energy, modulated by our willingness to do something about it. It's inherent to physical realities, and even if we blanketed the whole goddamn planet in solar panels somehow, there would still be a finite quantity of solar power on offer - that limitation is, to that extent, a case of scarcity at work. You can take it to any market you choose. Iron? Gotta mine and refine. Soft, silky boxers for your base layer? Better get spinning, weaving and tailoring. Whores ready to pleasure your groin in ways that you'd never imagined? They don't work free.
Scarcity is built into the universe, and has nothing to do with human malice in the abstract, specific examples of deliberate deprivation notwithstanding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:28AM (1 child)
Yeah TANSTAAFL we all know, now did you have something useful to add or just more banal commentary?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @03:58PM
OP asked a question. Reply answered it.
So tell me, how does that exchange make you feel? Worried? Tense?
... vulnerable?
Would you like a shoulder to cry on?