Also try appending:
inurl:forum|viewthread|showthread|viewtopic|showtopic|"index.php?topic" | intext:"reading this topic"|"next thread"|"next topic"|"send private message"
655 karma · joined June 18, 2012
inurl:forum|viewthread|showthread|viewtopic|showtopic|"index.php?topic" | intext:"reading this topic"|"next thread"|"next topic"|"send private message"
Unpaid loans and interest are not accounted for and create a need for even more loans to create more money out of thin air but of course those additional loans also have interest and are also unpaid so it spirals out of control.
A critical mass of people will continue thinking it's less serious than the flu (these retracted studies not helping it) until it gets so bad that it becomes impossible (e.g. everyone knows someone they really care about who died). That's when proper lockdowns are politically possible.
Also the state itself determines what the constitution is and even how it's interpreted or overriden. So saying state is accountable to constitution (which is determined by state ) is circular reasoning.
Guilty until proven innocent, right?
You can't just flat out lie if you want to be effective at propaganda.
Huh I guess we aren't post-religion society after all.
Nobody said anything about Lyft. Uber itself said that they aim to replace public transit. I really don't understand why you would go to such lengths to make up bullshit.
Right but nobody claimed that.
> “A portion of our trips can be a substitute for public transportation,”
And Koch is trying and succeeding to remove funding from public transit, that makes it easier for uber to replace public transit. So they are effectively working together.
Because that implies they are equally bad when that's very unlikely. It is giving undue weight to the less bad which makes the more bad side look better than it is.
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrociti...
No I mean they do not literally produce anything. A musician or writer produces music or writings. An ad is like a mudpie, nobody wants it. Does ads maximize profits in capitalist economy? Yes but that requires the assumption of capitalist economy. In real terms it is pure overhead and does not achieve any social or environmental need. If you need ads to buy something you don't need it by definition.
> They're a part of the economy though, my entire point is that your link ignores non physical bits of the economy, but that is now the dominant part of the economy, so the theory is at least outdated.
No actual production is the dominant part of the real economy, but money hides it because imperialism allows super explotation where the real producers are paid virtually nothing compared to the value produced. E.g. 1000 trillion worth of value is bought at 2 trillion. You cannot at the same time acknowledge the exploitation and think that some bullshit rent-seeking is what is producing most value in economy.
> I know what GDP per capita is, that's why I used it, have you got any particular reason why I should be using absolute GDP figures?
You should not be using GDP or any monetary value at all to measure anything real. Behind it is the assumption that money is same as social or environmental value, but the relationship is often not there or inversed.
No it doesn't, labor aristocracy is literally one of the predictions on the summary.
> But that misses out the money being made in finance. It misses the Googles making billions from advertising.
None of those produce anything, they are entirely dependent on actual production.
> Look at the richest GDP per capita countries [1]
GDP per capita is just the GDP divided by population, and GDP itself is not necessarily about production at all.
The problem isn't that there isn't such a system the problem is how to implement the system without people who benefit from current system trying to destroy it. But we can extrapolate from the fact that even in the most ridiculously unfair conditions such systems have managed to feed people far better than any capitalist country in same or even comparable conditions.
Because that is not the problem, the problem is neocolonialism/imperialism the highest stage of capitalism[1].
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Sta...
Well like I said in my OP you'd need to have economy entirely based on planning around needs and environment as opposed to private profits.
> People will still be the same persons they are now, who wants to eat meat, over-consume, close their eyes when an issue doesn't concern them directly. Or do you see it in a different way?
It's hard to tell what people are "naturally" when they are forced to live under a system that requires those traits in order to function and perpetuate itself. If you remove overconsumption and individualism a capitalist economy will collapse, then it is most likely not a coincidence that people are like that in a capitalist economy and not their "true" nature.
If the system is even going to be changed it's going to be because critical mass of people have recognized the need to change it (not suddenly overnight) which implies they are no longer indoctrinated to overconsume and see the world in individualistic way and have assumed other ideologies that are needed to support and perpetuate the new system.