Slashdot Mirror

story telling about 70% tax rate.

As I said before, if a liberal makes a claim that can be truthfully verified, check it. They ALWAYS lie.
Another lie brought to you by a KKK supporting, live baby killing, illegal murderer protecting liberal that wants to make you a criminal if you fly on an airplane.

JP Leary is just another tired Marxist who wishes he could have stormed the barrikady with Lenin, Stalin, and the gang. Haymarket books is likewise a collection of aging hippies and millennial socialists romanticising the glory days of axe-handle-swinging unionists throwing bombs at police.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/aut...

Fuck radicals of both ends of the spectrum. We need to ignore them more.

Here's a good rundown. The person that convinced Nixon was Martin Anderson, and he cited a falsified report on Speenhamland, which ran a similar kind of experiment.

Let's just go to the bottom of your comment first, so we can see just how nuts you are:

We're currently enjoying peace and prosperity, for the first time in decades.
Is there any point or purpose in making shit up about the administration?

No. So why are you doing it? This is not a moment of peace (In fact, America has been involved in military action continuously since WWII) and it is also not a moment of prosperity (see PR's sibling comment, also, the unemployment rates are a disgusting lie as always.)

I realize being a liberal comes with a big dose of cognitive dissonance, but the "he's literally Hitler" thing was dropped months ago.

It really wasn't, since he keeps saying things that hitler literally would have said.

Anyway, back to the top of your comment, now...

the current administration's descent into kleptocracy

WTF?

Trump is in debt, which is why he won't show his tax returns, and is staying at Mar-a-Lago every weekend. He charges us (The People) for this privilege, so that's one way he's stealing our money directly. No big surprise: All Trump profits are based on theft, and of course, impersonated a person who does not exist in order to create his initial reputation. Many of his various appointees are in trouble for various types of misuse or misappropriation of funds. So yes, theft.

we can literally shoot them in the middle of the street and face no legal consequences as there's absolutely zero authority of law and justice anymore.

WTF?

I'm with you on this one, anyway. That's not how force works.

Remember, Trump himself has personally declared that government by brute force is his preferred means of action, that he endorses terrorism and coercion,

WTF?

Trump has repeatedly encouraged and condoned violence. His picks for secretary of state and head of the CIA support the rest of the statement perfectly.

TL;DR: When you cry about other people's logic while you abandon it entirely, HAHAHAHAHAHA

My interests have not been represented in quite a few years. I am white, heterosexual, have medical insurance provided by my employer(s), college educated with BS and MS degrees in my chosen professional field, widowed, no kids, make too much money to claim lower bracket tax deductions and not enough money to take advantage of the higher bracket tax deductions, and practice no denomination of religious beliefs.

In fact, you are exactly the demographic that the Democratic party represents. Sure, they give some lip service to progressive ideas and identity politics, but that's because that's what people like you want to hear. But the establishment Democrats do nothing to support policies to actually help the poor and working class - they help people like you. It's why urban centers on the costs are so blue.

Uh, I'm not sure where you get your information however the Democrats haven't supported the middle class and especially the white, male middle class for years. They emphasize support for minorities and the working poor who are abundant in the urban centers on the coasts.

Yea, I'm calling bullshit on that. As I said, they pay lip service to it, but these days, the party really represents the well-to-do.

In the past, Democrats could support progressive, redistributive policies knowing that the costs would fall largely on Republicans. That is no longer the case. Now supporting these policies requires the party to depend on the altruistic idealism of millions of supporters who, despite being relatively well off, often feel financially pressed themselves.

The Democratic Party’s pursuit of well-off whites undermined its ability to deliver gains for all workers.

So no wonder Democrats are enamored with all of that rhetoric about inequality and class warfare. Their constituents, the audience they are addressing, are far more likely to live in the American equivalent of Rio de Janeiro, a class society starkly divided between squalid, hopeless, crime-ridden favelas and safe, beautiful downtown playgrounds for the rich. The Democrats are arsonists posing as the fire brigade, offering to solve a problem they created.

The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs. Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

Ha, so that 'miracle' played itself out quite a bit when the Pilgrims tried building their Communism and then almost died from hunger because that's what Communism (any collectivism actually) does, it removes personal responsibility together with personal ownership and then everybody suffers.

You seem to be confusing inexperience with the mechanisms of survival in an unfamiliar place with the methodology of organization.

Most likely, a deliberate choice, meant to advance your ideological cause under a cloak of altered reality.

It wasn't until the people become selfish that USA succeeded.

What are you talking about? Plenty of selfish people existed in the USA, they didn't miraculously find success. Many of them tried and failed, without the benefit of anyone like say, Squanto.

You can read lots of articles about the subject.

Of course, you won't, but that's hardly surprising.

First off: I sincerely thank you for a reply about the issue itself.

My point is that the same household who earned the money - .vs. being given the money - would not be buying soft drinks and other low nutrition food AT ALL. It is common sense for anyone who has actually known anyone who is poor

I understand the thinking, but 'common sense' is not a great basis for reasoning, as it more than once equals 'myth'. It is a fact that buying 'the wrong things' is closely related to self-control and there is certainly a case to be made for some people having poor self control and thus both suck at getting work/getting their shit together and buying things they shouldn't buy. Research has however also shown that self-control diminishes when you are poor, due to the added stress of being poor.

See:
- https://academic.oup.com/jcr/a...
- https://thecorrespondent.com/4...

For one, I'm saying that your claim that poor people who earn money are definitely not 'ALL' going to avoid low nutrition food, but let's put that aside for a moment.
Because secondly, you are making the wrong comparison here. Not giving poor families money does not magically make them earn money. In fact, given the research above, poor families would in general experience less stress due to something like UBI, would have more self-control and make better decisions.

Keynsian economics - which you have re branded in order to make it sound better

Not really. Keynesian economics is government oriented, i.e. if the economy isn't doing well, have the government spend tax money on specific things that create jobs (large infrastructure projects are a favorite). Demand side economics is broader than that and that is where your point misses the mark. The idea of UBI in this regard is to let the people spend the money, instead of the government. A natural response to that could be: "Well then, why then not just lower taxes?"

The answer to that relates to the velocity of money. One of the main purposes of inflation and interest policy is to prevent people from saving all their money and postponing purchases. Ask an economist what the perfect consumer would look like, from an economic point of view. It would be someone who spends almost all his money as soon as he or she gets it (some amount of buffer is good to reduce volatility, but in general 'spend, spend, spend' is the credo). It just so happens that poor people (out of necessity) are the perfect consumers. Redistributing wealth to them is good for the economy.

Before I continue, this all is besides the huge benefits of reducing crime, increasing the level of education and health of the general public that things such as UBI (social security in general) achieve.

The money spent locally bit is actually quite simple. Yes, the grocery store can buy stuff from abroad. But the people working at the grocery store still get a cut. The owner of the grocery store gets a cut. The probably reasonably locally based distributor and their employees get a cut. Compare that to a trip abroad: apart from the plane ticket, all the money for the trip leaves the local economy. Poor people also don't generally engage in foreign investments, emigrating, and rare imported goods.

The trillions and trillions of dollars we have thrown at your idea since the 60's has barely moved the poverty needle.

Nixon actually wanted to do UBI, but was blocked politically (it's a very insightful read in general):
https://www.jacobinmag.com/201...

But your point is way too simplistic. You pretend that we've been applying demand si

The reason a 'generation' eg: baby boomers 1945-1969 could retire earlier by aggregate is the cumulative savings or financial assets they were allowed to keep and accumulate. Over this period you had capitalism that was adding value, building stuff and investment reflected that. 17% of profit was financialised, the rest went to wages or expanding the core function of the business. Now 64% is financialised so growth is lower, economic output GAPS are wider, workforce participation is lower. FInancialisation becomes parasitic and slows growth at this level. Literally pigeonhole principle at work: train 100 pigeons to navigate their way to individual boxes. if there is only 80 boxes it guarantees 20 will miss out. Run this over many iterations and its simply a matter of fact that if there are always a shortage of boxes [jobs] there will be a larger distribution of non-finding boxes [non earning periods in a persons life] amongst the pigeons. [SOURCE FOR FINANCIALISATION] https://www.jacobinmag.com/201... Its mostly ideological not 'real resource constrained' that cumulative assets given to a generation SETS when they retire eg: Higher government spending ADDS to net financial assets claimed by the private sector. Larger compulsory retirement contributions keep workers working but also provides the choice to retire. Young people are not unrealistic they either ignorant of the issue entirely or understand to a certain extent the current system does not work and can be changed.

I haven't read the whole article but this one discusses some of it : https://www.jacobinmag.com/201...

Republicans in Sweden?

Yeah, only they are called democrats over there

Who said anything about banning private lending or insurance, just the banning of the force of law in private lending or insurance. Want to play loanshark, go ahead but expect no support from law when it comes to recovery money but expect force of law against you in your attempts to recover money.

As for the old total bullshit lie that private can be trusted more than government, give up on the bullshit from 30 years of main stream media owned by private corporations propaganda, it is just exactly that. Imagine the chaos of private armies not government armies, imagine the chaos of private police not government police, imagine the corruption of private courts, imagine the corruption or private government not public government, oh wait, you do not have to imagine that, the corrupt campaign donation system and bribes paid in offshore tax havens where incidentally corporations hide billions of dollars.

It is called psychopathic capitalism for a reason. http://thestandard.org.nz/psyc... , http://www.brainyquote.com/quo... , https://www.jacobinmag.com/201... , http://www.sott.net/article/29.... This reflected in there endless attacks on government of the people by the people and for the people versus capitalism of the psychopath by the psychopath and for the psychopath.

No, even the US has a real left wing, they're just not represented by any of the two mainstream parties. They are however quite well organized, there are several very good American leftist publications ( http://jacobinmag.com/ being my favorite) and even a daily radio/TV news show that by American standards is certainly quite left-wing (and very good, http://www.democracynow.org/ )

Sure, that might be true for the 0.1% that has dividends of the robot companies, but the rest will probably die off in one way or another.

Also note that if only few survive, many robot companies won't be needed because there will be less stuff to be produced, so the sustainability of this kind of society should not be given for granted.

I suggest you this interesting read about 4 possible futures.

That being said, 2045 is waaaay too soon (i would guess many hundred years) for something like that to actually happen. Robots just aren't advanced enough to replace humans in too many jobs, especially, i would say, jobs that require a mix of many "real world" skills (e.g. plumbers, salesmans, ... drug dealers, and so on, you get the idea:-)

"Megaupload's Kim Dotcom, a willfully tacky fat guy with a baby face and a vanity license plate that says "guilty," has styled himself as a kind of comic villain, a composite of everything people love to hate. He effectively serves as empire's face of piracy: an overweight nouveau-riche wannabe hacker who finally gets his comeuppance through the macho justice of Uncle Sam. It's so easy to hate Kim Dotcom that you almost forget that the US convinced the New Zealand government to send in an assault brigade, bereft of a valid warrant but outfitted with automatic weapons and helicopters, to arrest a Finnish citizen at the demand of Hollywood studios. If Kim Dotcom didn't exist, the FBI, with the help of the MPAA, would have invented him."

http://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/gimme-the-loot/