Total posts: 4,833
For nearly a decade, in ever increasing frequency and severity left-tribers in control of state governments have violated the 2nd amendment of the US constitution AND federal court confirmations of their violation.
They try to ban guns (de facto, regardless of their claims). The supreme court tells them "that's unconstitutional" and these left-tribe insurrectionists take that as a cue to write a new law which does the exact same thing as it buys them another 16 months for it to percolate to the supreme court.
In other words they're calling the bluff of the US constitution: Supreme court? How many divisions do they have?
There are no repercussions for violating the US constitution. The very worst that happens is that after long delays you are told "stop, and don't do it again" by less than a hundred people in black robes who never show themselves in public.
When mayors declared their cities "sanctuary cities" they were publicly announcing their intention to give aid and comfort to persons committing federal crimes. Thus impeding official proceedings. That is, by the most recent definition of insurrection, insurrection.
At last, the right-tribe leadership has begun to show the first inklings of understanding the true nature of the system we find ourselves in. At last they are asking "you and what army?"
Now Trump didn't send in the army to seize any "sanctuary" cities, but under left-tribe logic he could have. Biden may send in the troops for this, but it doesn't matter who acts first because the act will happen or the supreme court will become meaningless followed shortly by the complete collapse of federal authority.
Be it collapse into pathetic powerlessness or civil war, either outcome is preferable to the inane slavery of pretending we are living in a nation of laws.
Created:
Posted in:
This is why understanding inflation is so important. If you don't you might think that somebody printing monopoly money in DC and then forcing distant states to use it constitutes "helping" them.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Two guys in spiderman masks calling each other nazis, except one side says things like this. Didn't someone on this forum recently imply that failure to denounce is equivalent to endorsement?Yep. Is it nearing the time when the bugs will require extermination.
Anyone want to denounce? Didn't think so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They don't need to vote for Biden in the primary.It doesn't matter if they like her. They will vote for her if voting for her reduces the chance of what to them is an unacceptable outcome.Then they can't vote for Biden.
No, the northern vote would have been suppressed. There were tons of people who did not feel the duty to die to free slaves.Then why did they die for slaves in our timeline?
Many were convinced (by propaganda) that they were fighting for a divine plan in which the united states must remain united.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Inciting jealousy is an age-old manipulation. The concept which people should be paying attention to is this: The beneficiaries of the deep state don't care if they're taxed heavily, so long as they're paid more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It doesn't matter if they like her. They will vote for her if voting for her reduces the chance of what to them is an unacceptable outcome.So to be clear about what you should be very aware of as a human being: People do not always do what they say they will do. People's behavior can't be predicted by a simplistic list of "good" and "bad".What does this have to dow with Nikki Haley?
Most left wingers would vote for Biden over her.
Yes, but they don't have to choose in a primary.
But in a general election
Obviously wasn't the context.
Although if Lincoln said in his election, "I want to abolish slavery nationwide", the south wouldn't have voted for him (they didn't in our own timeline), but then the norhtern vote would have been even more energized (same with the southern vote).
No, the northern vote would have been suppressed. There were tons of people who did not feel the duty to die to free slaves. The Constitutional Union Party and northern democrats were a major force before military victory became obvious.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Then this supposed cut was 1/10th as severe as implied.Now I ask you, do you really think that 1.6 trillion would have gone to help poor people? Because the math says that they wouldn't be very poor if it did. If they worked minimum wage + that benefit they would be in the 100k rangeThe $1.6 trillion is over a ten year period.
The spending is on the order of a trillion per year.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i agree that the spending needs to be more efficient but that's a separate argument than slashing spending to people need it.
No it isn't. Do you know how much food people have sent to central and east central Africa? Warlords stole it all. Stole it and used it as pay for their soldiers and to control the people in their territory.
Then they attack each other and if they can't hold territory they steal or burn the food there.
Those facts are not separate from the argument that we should stop sending food. It's actually propping up a pre-civil society and causing more suffering than if no aid had been sent.
also not everyone who struggles is under the poverty line.
Hey, everybody has struggles; but if the poverty line isn't the line in the sand where people need a social safety net then we need a better poverty line.
Of course when the economy is constantly shrunk by the stealing that poverty line will keep getting higher and higher.
a single mom makes 30k and has a couple kids, or maybe a 150% of poverty. cutting assistence to her isn't going to make everything more efficient, it's just going to make her struggle more.
Actually it would make everything more efficient given the premise that what benefits she receives are in the context of 75%+ waste.
In other words, even for her, it would be better in the long term if the government didn't steal that money on her behalf because jobs would pay more and prices would stay lower. 30k at 1930 prices is more than enough.
your argument is that spending in inefficient therefore we should give people less basic assitance. that just ends up increasing needless suffering.
That is not the lesson history tells. When we produce more less people need "basic assistance".
When we sacrifice production efficiency the avoidable suffering increases on timescales from 5-infinity years.
we spend the same as other countries overall if you count private health spending and defense, we just have less social services.
So the same is stolen from us (not exactly true as it doesn't include the inflation-debt theft mechanism), but we (specifically our poor) get less help than other countries.
I think you're absolutely right about that.
What you're completely wrong about is the assumption that if the water pressure is too low, you just need a bigger pump. If there is a leak and you keep pumping until you're back up to full pressure you'll simply tear the leak wider.
The various tiers of government in the USA are broken. Hopelessly corrupt. They cannot be trusted. They are as leaky as a strainer and they became this way because failure and corruption have been rewarded (especially by democrats) for a century (since the new deal).
In many cases the money they steal in the name of helping people is used to prevent those people from being helped since if there was an efficient way to help then they would lose their excuse to steal.
The perfect example of that are departments of education vs charter schools. Schools which have a profound record of success and have done more to end poverty in deep blue democrat cities than all their social programs combined.
I'll repeat that: The government which is being paid to educate children is using stolen money to attack private organizations that educate children better than they do.
you should be making arguments about how to improve the programs
1.) Stop stealing. Doing good via evil never ends well.
2.) Start over, there is nothing worth reforming in the existing social programs. They are all monuments to waste, grift, and petty tyranny
3.) Never create a social structure where failure is rewarded. If the goal is to help people who have fallen on hard times, then the system must reward workers and divisions at every level in proportion to how much they actually helped the unfortunate. No one who is suffering should be paid to keep 'suffering'.
4.) Pursuant to (3) a continuous UBI is a simple solution that holds little risk of corruption. Don't try to figure out who is mooching and who is trying their best.
5.) The political power of potential parasites must be neutralized lest a vicious cycle of increasing parasitism form. Easy solution: People on UBI have no vote.
not mindlessly slash spending.
Does it really seem like I haven't thought about this a bit? Mindless? Really?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Now do the math thing again.
$2.3 trillion / 37.9 million = $60,686 per poor person
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
...and don't care about substance
There are 37.9 million people below the poverty line in the USA.
1.6 trillion dollars / 37.9 million = $42,216 per poor person
Now I ask you, do you really think that 1.6 trillion would have gone to help poor people? Because the math says that they wouldn't be very poor if it did. If they worked minimum wage + that benefit they would be in the 100k range (which barely squeaks by in democrat cities but that is another story)
They (the government) are stealing. The poor are receiving a tiny cut of the stolen wealth. That is the substance of the reason why informed people have absolutely no problem with Trump or anyone else slashing federal spending.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Very much like how left-tribers are currently voting for Niki Haley.I don't think that's accurate. Nikki Haley refused to say at a Town Hall that the civil war was about slavery.The left does not like Nikki Haley.
You know there is a sci-fi book: The Three Body Problem
In this book there are aliens whose evolutionary history rendered them exclusively capable of direct telepathy without deception. They never imagined communicating intentional falsehoods. So they nearly blew an enormous technical advantage by telling humanity their genocidal intentions.
I don't know if you're in some weird drug-addled rut or if you have had a dangerously sheltered life but you're giving off that kind of vibe.
So to be clear about what you should be very aware of as a human being: People do not always do what they say they will do. People's behavior can't be predicted by a simplistic list of "good" and "bad".
People will make sacrifices. People will lie. People will subvert. All because (normal) people have a theory of other minds.
"The left does not like Nikki Haley" as if that somehow proves a left-triber wouldn't cast a vote for her? They are evaluating relative probabilities and acting to maximize the sum of the outcome probability * outcome acceptability. They understand the game, like I understand the game. You need to understand the game or you will be forever making incorrect predictions about other people's behavior. If you are this clueless in your personal life you will be very vulnerable to manipulation.
Speaking of the civil war, that was full of subversion by both sides. The southern aristocracy knew they were fighting for slavery, said as much publicly (to the right crowds); but they told the average southerner it was about state's rights and they meant it even if it was secondary to preserving slavery for them.
Lincoln denied it was about slavery more than once, to preserve political power; given the full historical context it's as obvious as the Himalayan mountains that the abolitionists including Lincoln were always going to leap at any chance to abolish slavery and that without that motivation there would have been no civil war (as the south easily saw through Lincoln's obfuscations about his beliefs).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yes, the county executive office has been controlled by democrats for decades. Bunch of zombies that will pick democrat no matter how much their life sucks. So the only way to affect change is to influence the primary.I never said it was.You said it's the reason you became a democrat.
Very much like how left-tribers are currently voting for Niki Haley.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you were wondering what county politics caused me to register as a democrat, it was fighting unequal application of county codes.How is that a left wing idea?
I never said it was. Left and right are made up. Empty containers for politicians and people to fill with their own hopes.
Liberty means something. Equality under the law means something.
Working out and county codes aren't political.
Government violence is by definition political. What you mean is that restoring the enormous list of rights trampled on by county codes isn't a mainstream issue. Puppet propagandist of the deep state control what is mainstream by manipulating narrative and continuously asking any opponents questions about the issues they choose as if they were somehow the most important, an excellent example would be gender-neutral bathrooms.
The arbitrary enforcement of "minor" criminal codes such as building codes and zoning deprive more people of more liberty than enforcing gender neutral bathrooms in public accommodations ever could. In fact the mechanism for such enforcement would be building codes in the same way the Americans with disabilities act inanely forces people to build ramps just in case somebody needs it once a year.
If you think the OP example is an outlier you are sorely mistaken. Long live the killdozer!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I have never even met a Christian who follows scriptures to the letter and literally.
Expressing self-contradictory beliefs makes them even more wrong, it doesn't leave them in logical limbo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The definition of rain implies detectability. That is the point.So an undetectable rain would be a possibility with any definition which doesnt include detectability.
Yes, in scientific terminology that would be an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" which by their nature are also useless hypotheses as they predict nothing and can't be differentiated from contradictory hypotheses in the same category.
Any theory of god that falls under this category is also useless for the same reasons. If there is no way to know if the theory is true there is no way to differentiate the theory from competing theories.
This renders things like Pascal's wager meaningless as undetectable god A might damn you for the exact same behavior undetectable god B would save you.
And its impossible to detect undetectable rain, thus impossible to prove that undetectable rain doesnt exist.
Yes
And Christians will never agree to define God as detectable unless he is actually detectable.
What they agree to is irrelevant. They have scripture. The implications of that scripture are inescapable.
They can claim to believe in an undetectable god, but that would require the renouncement of the scripture as the source of their knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Absence of proof can be proof of absence when the proposition in question should by definition produce evidence (proof). If I define rain such that it would fill an open top beaker left in the open, then the lack of water in the beaker is proof that there was no rain.Actually, that would at best only be proof of no detectable rain.
The definition of rain implies detectability. That is the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There are only 2 options:A. God existsB. God doesnt exist
No, there are far more options than that.
There could be multiple gods of different natures. Even if there was only one god there would be as many options as there are permutations of a single god.
One could say, because there is no proof for A, B is true.
One could even say it in a different way: A is true because there is no proof for B.
The inversion of a fallacy is also a fallacy, yes.
So to conclude, absence of proof is not proof of absence when you have two contradicting options, both without proof, where one must be correct.
As is so often the case with logic, you (and many others) oversimplify.
Absence of proof can be proof of absence when the proposition in question should by definition produce evidence (proof). If I define rain such that it would fill an open top beaker left in the open, then the lack of water in the beaker is proof that there was no rain.
Denying one side of a dichotomy can prove the opposite IF the dichotomy is true and at least one option must be true. If the door was certainly unlocked and someone certainly unlocked it, and it could only have been Amy or Frank, then Amy having an alibi proves Frank unlocked the door.
Proving there is no god(s) at all isn't going to happen. Proving a specific god of a specific nature (for instance the god of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob) doesn't exist by lack of evidence is possible. That particular god is supposed to be all-present, willing to talk to people, and has a certain agenda. Then if he fails to do something, like say... send a messiah or stop a holocaust, that proves he doesn't exist.
Therefore, we would be dealing with 50% chance of God existing, since by laws of probability, when two options have unknown probability where one option must be true, it is treated as 50% probability.
This is so very wrong. A prevalent error perhaps, but still very wrong. Statistics is very much the logic version of a gun in the hands of a toddler.
Identifying a dichotomy gives you NO information about probabilities of either. It inversely relates probabilities, that is all.
When probability is equally unknown on both sides, it follows that both sides are equally possible since unknown probability of one side equals unknown probability of the other side.
Nope, still wrong. Only thing to say is a question: What in the world made you think that?
Its not a proof that God doesnt exist, but it is a proof that their specific "completely good" God cannot exist.
Correct.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Most legislation today is passed with little to no support from the publicAh, you want direct democracy instead of representative democracy.
Having any democracy at all would be an improvement at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Wait, sheltering homeless is a crime?
Everything is a crime when vague laws are interpreted by lazy, corrupt, or biased people.
That's why Trump is being charged with a crime for saying he thinks his properties are worth a lot of money.
Revolution is what is needed. It doesn't have to be bloody.How about another joke?
You tell plenty already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you were wondering what county politics caused me to register as a democrat, it was fighting unequal application of county codes.
Unequal application of the law allows absurd law to remain on the books to be used to:
A.) Threaten dissidents
A.) Threaten dissidents
B.) Satisfy Karens
C.) Public corruption
C.) Public corruption
It is unacceptable. Prosecutorial discretion is unacceptable (and unconstitutional). The notion of any crime so minor that there need not be a trial is unacceptable. The rot of petty tyranny permeates every aspect of American public life, from the smallest HOA (where the absurdity reaches amazing heights) to the highest federal offices.
Revolution is what is needed. It doesn't have to be bloody. It doesn't mean we have to burn down buildings, but these structures are rotten must be interrupted entirely.
There are questions which must always be answered to near unanimous satisfaction: What gives you (the state) the right to do this? Who is the victim of the crime? What suffering will you (agent of the state) endure if you needlessly cause others suffering?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I have seen more evidence that there was widespread fraud in the US election than the Russian elections.And yet you didnt move to Russia.
I considered it. The Russians themselves aren't too impressed with Russia so... There are much better choices, but the plague of collectivism is of course everywhere.
Current hopefuls: El Salvador and Argentina
The new Argentinian guy is raining objectivists dog whistles.
and that's only assuming there is no hope in staying and fighting.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
but you appear to be growing increasingly incoherent.How?
PETA is nuts, insane people don't have coherent positions such as "don't eat bugs, therefore X Y and Z". Even if they did "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not applicable to worldviews. Even if Trump and PETA opposed eating bugs, that does not mean PETA supports Trump (or should support Trump).
India and Israel may have many people who support Trump, but it's not over the question of eating bugs.
There is no connection here, and if you genuinely thought there was your mental processes are currently subnormal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Aww, people need their fan fiction though!
Don't worry, soon enough they'll be able to deep fake the fact-checks as well as the photos. Then the "unconvincable" trumpanzees will be left out in the cold harsh world of facts and reason.
<sarcasm>Trust me, just because a guy will deep fake Trump's parents in KKK garb doesn't mean he would fill out a fraudulent ballot. Democracy is sacred to these people!</sarcasm>
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Maybe I missed something, but you appear to be growing increasingly incoherent. Maybe at some point you will straddle the sane and insane worlds and you can translate for ebuc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Trump's father, Fred Trump, was arrested at a Ku Klux Klan rally in New York on Memorial Day 1927. On that day, approximately 1,000 white-robed Klansmen marched through Queens in opposition to Roman Catholic police.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They don't, they exposed themselves as enemies of democracy when they cheated to stop Trump from winningSo you claim that Putin and Kim Jong Un, actual enemies of democracy, arent supporting Trump.
I have seen more evidence that there was widespread fraud in the US election than the Russian elections.
To clarify my statement: There are plenty of antidemocratic forces opposing Trump vehemently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nothing I say will make you not vote for Trump because you are unconvincable, so maybe I should stop trying.
You have no chance of winning this debate in my opinion. You should have realized that already, but your motivations in trying to advance such an absurd double standard are something you are going to have to work through.
If you applied that of hyper-contagious guilt by association then anyone who supports Biden supports lynching because Biden once endorsed a KKK guy and the KKK once endorsed lynching.That racist endorsement was 50 or so years ago. Trump's implied support is current.
Did Biden ever denounce the KKK guy?
You should judge politicians by the standards of their time, not ours.
How gracious of you. Lets put that in context of the nonsense you've already relied upon:
Guilt by association: fine
Silence = endorsement
Sins of the child are borne by the parents
but hey, everybody was racist back then; no biggie... except Trump was alive too and he wasn't endorsing KKK wizards. I guess credit doesn't survive 50 years either. Your rules are really quite specific aren't they.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think living in Russia or North Korea or China is better?
The ways in which it is worse to live in those countries are exactly the ways people slandering Trump are pulling us, including Niki-ID-everyone-Haley
enemies of democracy... support Trump?
They don't, they exposed themselves as enemies of democracy when they cheated to stop Trump from winning.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
When you put it in that light it's not so unusual that they consider poking giant holes in election integrity to be "defending democracy" while calling the people who call for fair and free elections to be "destroyers of democracy"And then they have the gall to pretend that they protect democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Of course they did, regardless of whether you're talking about the inhabitants of Lesbos or female homosexuals.Lesbians didn’t exist 2000 years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Even if he doesn't that doesn't mean he endorses him, and even if Trump endorsed him that wouldn't mean people who endorse Trump endorse him.... and even if people endorse Fuentes that doesn't mean they endorse everything he says.Trump isn't going to denounce Nick Fuentes
If you applied that of hyper-contagious guilt by association then anyone who supports Biden supports lynching because Biden once endorsed a KKK guy and the KKK once endorsed lynching.
This is because Trump agrees with Fuentes
So you can read minds.
He called for Terminating the entire constitution.I love the 1st,2nd,4th,5th,8th,9th,10th,13-15th, and the 19th amendment. I don't like the 16th amendment; that amendment was bad.
No more than you just did.
But the rest are based and it is anti free speech and anti gun to advocate destroying the entire constitution.
I guess you used the your telepathy to figure that one out too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The average person that supports Trump supports a guy that would execute his political opponents.
Did you think you made an argument supporting that?... because you didn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
People who are homephobic think gayness is a choice. It is not, Males with a genetic condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome can develop female genitalia and are usually brought up as girls, despite being genetically male – with an X and Y chromosome – and they are attracted to men.
Psuedoscientific bullshit. No one is prepared to say there is a test to predict being homosexual. If there was, every parent would have their child tested and the imbalance corrected. That would then be called "homophobia" or "gay genocide" or something.
PS. This lie is especially vile, it forms the basis of the push to mutilate children. Homosexual tendencies do not justify irrational genital butchery. A homosexual with working organs is far better equipped to lead a happy productive life than a "heterosexual" transitioned person with no fertility, constant infections, dependence on giant pharmaceutical companies for hormones (and the hormones are still messed up).
They obsess over gender roles, and then they ENFORCE THE GENDER ROLES by claiming that if a boy acts as they think a girl should act or vice versa then they aren't really a boy and this somehow means it's time for hormone blockers.
There is nothing irrational about fearing a society which would rather reach for a scalpel then accept tomboys and boys men who are interested in fashion.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If I'm right, hopefully I can convince others to break out of partisan cults, and then once that happens, then they become more persuadable once they realize that their party was forming their own beliefs instead of their own mentality.
There are many thought patterns that lead back to the same policy/tactic/code of behavior. This is one of them. Whether you believe it to be the case or not is entirely up to you, but it changes nothing in how you ought to deal with others.
No one, not even cult members will admit to believing something simply because they've been told to believe it. Since it is possible for people in a cult to be unaware of the absurdity of their beliefs it follows that (unless you or I claim to have a superior intellect or will) we could be in a cult. How do we/you know we aren't the crazy ones? Many people respond to this realization by purporting to believe in subjectivism. Of course they don't really believe it, the notion just conveniently short circuits any further contemplation.
Only two people who share the premise of reason can have meaningful communication through this miasma of subjectivity or potential delusion.
You will never convince someone that their epistemology is wrong. Epistemology is what creates knowledge and is the only knob by which convincing can happen. For example if someone believe the bible is the only source of knowledge, you can only convince them of anything by twisting the bible to make your case.
In the end, you can't make people rational, and even if you find someone who beleives themselves to be rational (but you say they are in a cult), the only thing that has a hope of convicning them would be an appeal to reason.
Making a good argument is also the only way to convince a rational person who is not in a cult (or freakishly loyal to a party or whatever word you want to use).
If cult:
argue
else:
argue
Talking about this stuff doesn't help, but it can hurt. For example when I reactivated on this forum most recently you said I was one of these party zombies. That contributed absolutely nothing to convincing me of anything but opened the door to turn the conversation to mudslinging and well poisoning instead of relevant arguments.
If others are rationale, then they would be open about the times when they are willing to buck orthodoxy and be as passionate about the issue they buck orthodoxy with their party on as if it was an issue accepted by their party.When was the last time you heard someone like YouFoundLxam advocate a left wing position he genuinely believes in? Or Dr. Franklin?
That is not true. You can't presume that orthodoxy must be significantly false and require others to point out their problems with it to prove their objectivity.
Whether or not something is true cannot be affected by who believes it is true. Therefore it is possible for a party/religion/any group to be right even if in practice it is unlikely. It is just as unlikely that any individual is right about everything, but if we knew which of our beliefs were wrong without debate we would hardly have many disagreements.
Again, this analysis that leaves you nowhere closer to the truth or convincing anyone.
They are afraid to call out their own party on issues where they think their party deserves critisism.
It is possible they are afraid, but they are much more likely to be afraid of the cognitive dissonance within themselves than outside criticism and even that is not something you could know with any certainty and certainly not something that convinces anyone to change.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It would affect the whole economy at the same timeThis is just pure assumption.
It is obvious as money is by definition the common denominator.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Guess they don't have the story about goldilocks and the three bears in North Korea?Those who set their prices too high lose sales. Thus they lose profit.This is false, because anyone keeping prices too low would quickly run out of products, and customers would be forced to buy from the one keeping prices high.
So an individual producer choosing to reduce prices and wages does not need to lead to all others reducing prices and wages to same.
There is nothing localized about deflation due to not printing money while the quantity of trade increases. It would affect the whole economy at the same time, and no faster than the growth in real production.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm going to act like my mind can be persuaded and other people are going to assume my mind can be persuaded (and maybe I will actually believe that my mind can be persuaded), but subconsciously, I won't be able to have my mind persuaded because I have a party to stick too.
Truth table it out. What happens when you assume that other minds are irrational?
If you're right then what do you gain?
If others are rational, but you don't give them a chance to be convinced, then to them you aren't susceptible to reason as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
There is no central API for AI (Although there are big ones that get most of the traffic combined). Most of the trained neural networks are avaialble to be downloaded and could be run on personal computers (with enough memory and patience).
Some layers in some networks have random number generators so that the results aren't always identical. In those cases the seed is often controllable. Even if they don't, anyone who knows what they're doing can add an input layer to randomize the output (to some degree).
Therefore: It can't be proven to not be AI generated. However under many circumstances it could be proven to be AI generated.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
ignore the points about those with more profit being better able to compete
Those who set their prices too high lose sales. Thus they lose profit. What is too high? That is determined by competitors and customers. A company can easily make itself the worse competitor with less profits by setting prices to high and holding price constant in monetary units with increasing value is identical to increasing prices.
Therefore under conditions of constant deflation the competitive dynamics do not change what so ever. All prices are reduced (in currency) to maintain their real-value relationships. Anyone who doesn't do this be they employers or employees, producers of consumer goods or raw materials will lose business and ultimately be replaced by someone who is willing follow the market.
just ignoring that each billionare indeed has at least 500 million in cash.
Ignoring? Disbelieving your assumption is not ignoring.
Your claim of all extracted money being spent
Eventually, and it is obvious. Only cartoon ducks find value in swimming in paper currency and one or two eccentric people here and there hardly contract the money supply of entire nations. Now if there was constant deflation there would be a motivation to hoard currency but ONLY if the deflation rate rewarded saving currency more than the return on investment of stocks & loans.
and all prices dropping equally at the same time is at best an assumption and a fantasy.
You're just repeating denials. Not making any new arguments or addressing any of my arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
Well OP is correct that "Scientists say X. Therefore X is true." is an bad argument. It's always invalid and almost always weak just like all appeals to authority.
If you define an "authority" as an entity which makes a good argument, then it's a proxy which shouldn't be brought up when debating (where there is time and the best argument should be the focus). If you define an authority in any other way then it's simply a weak argument.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
. but I have a bunch of sticks and a car.I'm the loser in this scenario?Yes, because you cant earn money. I thought it was obvious.
No, because I don't want money. I want sticks. If I can't make sticks or trade for sticks (or steal sticks) then I'm screwed whether there is money (capital) or not.
Money doesn't pile up anywhere unless there is no trade. If there is no trade with money there would be no trade without money. Therefore the problem you think you've found is not unique to "capitalism", nor is it really a problem. When people don't want to trade that's probably them looking out for their own best interests. If you don't want to trade for my car that's both your right and probably what is best for you.
Not magic, deflationI have already explained to you that prices of ingredients cannot magically drop unless wages of those who produce them also drop.
Which they would in uniform deflation.
Yep, that's what "uniform deflation" meansSadly for your fantasy economy, even if all prices dropped proportionally at the same time as well as wages, you would still have battle for profit because wages have to be payed and those who had more profit before can afford higher wages, therefore taking over the buisness who pays workers less.
What does that even mean? "battle for profit"? People are always trying to maximize profit. They are constrained by the consent of others not the money supply. Whether it's $1,000,000 day wage or $1 per day wage an employer will pay as little as they can get away with (decided by the potential employee pool) and sell for as high as they can get away with. On the grand scale what they can get away with is determined by their production partners, employees, and customers. If the money supply is cut in half and this happens gradually enough anyone who holds prices constant will be in fact increasing prices in terms of real value. Once this becomes significant enough to be noticed they will begin to lose bushiness. They either lower prices or go out of business.
This is true for whoever makes burger components just as much as for employees (who are selling labor for profit).
But if a buisness who runs into deficit simply lowered wages of its workers and prices, but other buisnesses did not do the same, the workers in that buisness would starve because all other prices would be higher than their wages.
Other businesses would have to do the same. Failing to react to changes in monetary value is identical to raising real prices. All traders (employees and employers) would react in the same way and it would be (and has been in the rare circumstance of deflation) totally seamless when it happens over decades.
And thats assuming you could lower price. Cost of production, machines and materials will not drop any time you need reduction in price of your products.
Not because "you need" but because "money is more valuable per unit" yes they must.
Billionaires aren't billionaires because they literally have billions of dollars.No, they obviously have 0 dollars in cash, or just 1000$. I mean, do you honestly believe billionares spend all their profit?
I honestly believe that they never have $1,000,000,000 in currency in any bank account. If they want generational wealth they buy stocks or stable assets such as land, high quality buildings, art, etc....
If the average American homeowner has $200k net worth in their house in mid life (don't care if that's true anymore) they will have at most $20,000 liquid cash (in the bank). For the ultra-wealthy it's the same or even more extreme i.e. having a hundred million in currency (except in preparation for a specific large purchase) is silly no matter how rich you are. Maybe have 10 million in case you want to buy a mansion at the drop of a hat.
Paying people doesn't add value to the market. People producing things to sell does. Wages don't add value, working does.Oh, you dont know? If there are no wages, people cannot buy anything.
Oh you don't know? If people didn't work there wouldn't be anything to buy.
So which can exist without the other?
Did people produce things before money? Yes.
Can people produce things without trading for them? Yes.
If I offer to pay someone a wage, does that guarantee I will get a product in return? No
You should be able to infer the truth of my statement from those questions and answers.
The only rule is that whatever unit of value I compute in has to show a net gain or else I'll run out of value.Okay, so how will you pay wages 500$, and earn 200$, and not run into a loss of profit?
I can't. That's not the fake rule you implied. The fake rule is that the sum of wages paid by both companies is $1000/period then the sum of both companies production must also be $1000/period.
As you have correctly pointed out, that would mean no profit. The sum of the production can be $2000/period. This does not mean the market is headed for collapse or that we need to start digging holes to pour money into. It means we will buy $2000 of stuff from the market instead of $1000.
That can be in the form of personal wealth (which some might call greed), it can be increasing wages, but much more realistically it would be spent investing in greater productive capacity which would ultimately allow fewer workers to produce more goods, increasing their wages OR reducing the price of the product. Either way improving the quality of life for all. Not just a theory, proven every single time since the dawn of civilization, even when official currencies were not being minted and people were doing annoying and complicated weight-barter.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So in this scenario you make all the sticks, I want sticks, and I only make cars that nobody wants?Or think of it in this way.Trade only works if no one is saving.If I sell you a stick for 5$ and you sell me a car for 5$, thats equal trade.But if I sell you a stick for 5$ and refuse to buy your car for 5$, I now have 10$. And I can invest 5$ to produce more sticks to sell it to you until you run out of money and I get rich.
Meaning I have nothing you want.... and if we're the only ones in the economy then that means you can't buy anything with those dollars.... which means you just gave me sticks for no reason to get useless currency.
... but I have a bunch of sticks and a car.
I'm the loser in this scenario?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You do realize that if they can't keep it forever it's not really out of circulation?New rich people come after them, so yes, they can keep it forever.
Right, successive generations of people with a mental disorder which compels them to horde cash.
Your deflation solves nothing.
Once again, and still just as relevant: It's not a solution, there is no problem.
So in your example, prices of ingredients magically dropped
Not magic, deflation.
your wage dropped to exact same what it was.
Yep, that's what "uniform deflation" means.
because any money removed from economy as profit cannot be made up for in price reduction
Money represents profit, it is not profit. That is why nobody really profits if they don't spend the money. That is why they always spend the money. Billionaires aren't billionaires because they literally have billions of dollars. They have billions of dollars worth of assets.
Since amount of money on the market constantly decreases
It still doesn't.
and buisnesses cannot make profit without some other buisness being in deficit
Still not true.
Kinda like, if I pay my workers 500$, and you pay yours 500$, the total value we put to market is 1000$
Paying people doesn't add value to the market. People producing things to sell does. Wages don't add value, working does.
So if I earn 800$ from selling to that market, you can only earn 200$. So one of us is doomed to fail.
There is no such rule. The only rule is that whatever unit of value I compute in has to show a net gain or else I'll run out of value.
Thats how capitalism without printing money works.
That's how your fatally flawed understanding of a free economy works.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Are they immortal? No.You do realize that they dont need to be immortal to extract money and keep it for decades?
You do realize that if they can't keep it forever it's not really out of circulation?
Nobody cares about dollars. They want value. Goods and services. Dollars are just trading tools and (rational) people only care about them to quantify the relative value of goods and services.The profit of a burger joint is entirely defined by how efficiently they produce burgers vs how many people with things to trade want those burgers.It doesn't matter at all if the burgers cost $10 one year and $0.98 the next. It doesn't matter if they were sold for bitcoin or gold coins.The profit is determined by earnings minus cost.
In real value.
Yes. Why does that make "capitalism" (economic liberty) impossible?I never said it makes it impossible. I said it demands money to be printed.
If it doesn't require minting currency then it does not demand minting currency. Meaningless wordplay.
No, still the exact same amount. If you "have" to reduce wages that implies you aren't sitting on an ever growing pile of currency.Okay, you are obviously trolling.
Then stop responding.
Wages are cost of production.
One of them.
Prices of product determine how much you earn.
Price * number of sales, yes.
You cannot reduce the price of total product and have equal earning.
You can if the value of the currency goes up or more people buy the product. In this case we're talking about the value of the currency going up.
You cannot reduce the price of total product and have equal earning.
Burger is $1 today, and $0.99 next year, but if everything else is 99% of the price next year then the value gained by selling the burger hasn't changed at all.
Let's look at an extreme example to make it obvious:
You sell burgers. You buy milkshakes and burger ingredients.
Burger ingredients cost $0.80. You sell burger for $1. You buy milkshake for $0.20
That milkshake is your profit. The worth of your labor (your wage as it were). Wages are the profits of employees.
Oh No! Massive but uniform deflation occurs!
Now burger ingredients cost $0.40. Milkshakes cost $0.10. If you tried to sell a burger for $1 everyone would go to your competitors. You sell it for $0.50
Now you're saying (because you don't understand money) that "my wages have gone down, it's the end of the world" and I'm saying "You can still buy a milkshake for every burger you make and sell"
NOTHING CHANGED.
The same would be true of inflation if it was uniform. Printing money and then loaning it to yourself and your pals pretending to be legitimate private businesses is not uniform.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You're going to spend that $1200, so nothing is out of circulation.Actually, there are plenty of billionares who dont spend all their money, and they only spend to earn more.
Are they immortal? No.
In fact, it would be silly to assume that buisness would spend all extra money for any purpose other than to get even more money from the economy.
Doesn't need to be all now does it. It doesn't disappear. It's not taken out of circulation. End of story.
The deflation itself would cause a fall of profit in buisnesses, leading to race to the last dollar.
Nobody cares about dollars. They want value. Goods and services. Dollars are just trading tools and (rational) people only care about them to quantify the relative value of goods and services.
The profit of a burger joint is entirely defined by how efficiently they produce burgers vs how many people with things to trade want those burgers.
It doesn't matter at all if the burgers cost $10 one year and $0.98 the next. It doesn't matter if they were sold for bitcoin or gold coins.
In fact, with same amount of money always in economy, deflation doesnt solve the issue, but adds to the issue
Deflation isn't a strategy it's a phenomenon. The name for the increasing value of currency due to the increasing production.
And with deflation, wages would also have to constantly decrease because its impossible to pay worker more than you earn from him.
Yes. Why does that make "capitalism" (economic liberty) impossible?
Also, deflation would just add to the profit loss
There is no profit loss.
The only problem with deflation is people using it to cheat by saving and that's practical if the deflation is slower than investment returns.
if wages are lowered then there is even less money circulating.
No, still the exact same amount. If you "have" to reduce wages that implies you aren't sitting on an ever growing pile of currency.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it's also related to how the gold standard is such a bad idea. no gold standard and printing money causes the economy to be stimulated. if people get scared to spen money, at least the fundamentals are such that things are moving, being stimulated.
Human economies ran just fine for the 8000 year we used gold. Nobody was scared to spend money. This is a myth, and the Keynesian theory of stimulus/depression cycles has been debunked.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Profit, by definition, means earning more money than you spent.
Earning more value than lost is the fundamental definition. It's only true with money if money is has a stable value. One can profit by barter.
Think of kinda like this. I invested 1000$. I got 1200$. Now there is 200$ less dollars in circulation than it was before.
Think a bit more: You're going to spend that $1200, so nothing is out of circulation.
Therefore, the more profit buisnesses make as a whole, the less money there is in economy.
This less money/value, which in of itself is not deflationary so long as the dynamic value (how much is traded) doesn't change. Unfortunately the dynamic value tends to grow with static value; in fact there isn't much in the way of static value besides land and very well designed buildings.
This would produce an effect where buisnesses have to fight and fight until there is not much money left, causing collapse of economy.
Deflation doesn't cause the collapse of anything if it's slow enough. Just a slight impedance to coinage and/or dealing with decimal places.
Deflation favors savers. Uniform inflation favors investors in real assets. Thieving inflation (what governments do) is no different from counterfeiting, favors the people who manufacture the money.
Created:
I have practiced long fasts as well. The first 2-3 days is torture, but what happens after is pretty cool. Lots of energy and focus. You can make it last longer by drinking salt and acids (thin broth, lemon water).
In the end though it hurts and that focus becomes hard to use on anything but food. Better than trying to eat 5lb of kale every day but very hard to pull off while you have constant responsibilities.
If you watch the food network after five days of fasting you'll think it's the most amazing TV ever.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
[Sidewalker] I mean, squashing the Houthis like a bug can hardly be called a World War.Screw proportional response, I vote for disproportional response, the message needs to be, "If you attack us, you will be sorry".Airstrikes are a great deterrent.
I'm old enough to remember the post 9/11 scene. The deep state finds it very easy to get people to feel this way. Then Bush was their man. Then Obama, now Biden.
The best lies are half-truths. The half here are many:
Russia shouldn't be bombing people except at the utmost end of need: True
Hamas shouldn't be raping and beheading people: True
Houthis shouldn't be pirating ships: True
Iran, they're up to no good: True
CCP was a wretched communist monster now decaying into a loathsome digital-fascist state: True
The problem isn't that we're being lied to about the existence of enemies. The problem is that the people in charge of the military industrial complex want there to be enemies and create/provoke enemies when they're running low.
They lower the stick and withdraw the carrot to keep it all on a nice simmer that requires a constant expenditure and crisis-excuse for domestic policy.
I've noticed a lot of people saying "well a president can act immediately", when does "immediately" end? Do you think Congress will be asked? I don't think so. If you ask you might get an answer you don't like. It's much safer to just act and then the worst case scenario is the supreme court saying "don't do it again or else we'll tell you not to do it again"
Now of course there could be something to look forward too. If presidential immunity isn't a thing I say we hang all our presidents for murder for all their assassinations without declarations of war. Biden and Obama are definitely on the list.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
@Best.Korea
lol, maybe... sometimes, I wouldn't count on it.Software updates improve everything, especially battery life
This is true.New smartphone has new battery.While I personally know how to maintain battery in smartphone so it stays good for years, most other people dont. Most other people will overcharge (above 80%) and let battery drain below 30%.
Cars you mostly want new, for pretty much similar reasons as smartphones.
If it's a battery car, and even then to a much lesser extend as larger banks of batteries are far less susceptible to damage and have out performed expectations in cars.
Any transport device, you want new.
No, it depends on the engineering quality including materials and tolerances. It is almost always an irrational decision to buy a new sailboat for example. A properly engineer sailboat doesn't have irreplaceable components, is extremely resistant to wear and corrosion, and you shouldn't have a sailboat if you can't fix a sailboat.
Whether or not buying a used car is a good financial decision depends on your ability as a mechanic and your access to space and tools. There are people who are unable to change their own oil or rotate their own tires. Such people should buy the lowest maintenance brands (Honda, Toyota) and either new or very lightly used.
People who can handle basic maintenance tasks should buy slightly to moderately used with less emphasis on brand.
People such as myself who are comfortably repacking bearings, replacing axles, and even boring cylinders should buy the best vehicle by features and repairability regardless of age. That is what I did, and I calculate I have saved around $28k so far.
Perhaps a very used vehicle of a robust brand would be better still, but the problem with those immortal vehicles is that nobody wants to sell them (because they just keep working).
Computers are kinda better used, unless you are after some latest technology for gaming.
Computers are much closer to phones in analysis, but in both cases getting the latest generation tends to be a bad financial move as the performance/$ is usually 1 or 2 generations behind the latest.
[FLRW] Well, I am poor (my net worth is less than $300 million).
I hope there is a typo in there.
Created: