Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

  On 2/8/2016 at 4:53 AM, usagi said:

Achievement unlocked: jazz within 5 posts

https://youtu.be/OR1kV2hBaGY

Did anyone post this yet? I bet this guy posts up in Starbucks sporting his desktop rig with a 50" monitor.

lol

this planet is so fucked if the republicans win

lol

  On 2/8/2016 at 2:23 PM, Ivan Ooze said:

this planet is so fucked if the republicans win

I still think it's unlikely. Today's Republicans are just too retarded and backwards-thinking to really get anywhere. Everyone else knows they have no place the ever-evolving international community.

Well keep in mind that almost all of the GOP candidates have already been elected to high-ranking positions. I am a little worried that we'll have a GOP president.

And I think the stakes are higher than usual. The next 10 years are gonna be crucial in a very novel way: automation is poised to start replacing human labor very soon. The only way this won't be catastrophic is if we (America, humanity) embrace Socialism and start treating America like a co-op.

If we get a president (and Congress and Senate etc) that perpetuates the usual "socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else" policies, then we are gonna have a very big problem on our hands.

/sci-fi paranoia

socialism is worse than crony capitalism though, much better we had capitalism for everyone instead.

  On 2/8/2016 at 7:20 PM, caze said:

socialism is worse than crony capitalism though, much better we had capitalism for everyone instead.

How is socialism worse than crony capitalism?

Perhaps you're thinking of the "socialism" of USSR etc?

yeah socialism is hell, just look at how terrible the scandinavian countries are doing.

because top-down control of human interaction is a bad idea in principle (the world is simply too complicated a place to think we can control it at the political level), it leads to very bad things. even if the intentions are good, when there's only one end result it's not much of an excuse.

there's very little actual socialism in europe btw, if that's what you're hinting at, we're mostly capitalist with the odd bit of socialism thrown in here and there. but socialism is alive and well in many places outside of europe, and it's just as bad now there as it's always been.

I'm not against pragmatic application of minimal amounts of socialism where necessary btw, I'm not a libertarian or anything. But primarily governments should be small, local, and not interfere with markets too much (aside from banking and preventing monopolies and price fixing cartels, i.e. protecting the freedom of the market - something which hasn't been done a lot recently).

of course there are many political theories of non-top down socialism, they've not really been attempted on a large scale though (or even been particularly successful on a small scale), and there's every reason to believe they're just as silly an idea as radical libertarianism. this could change at some indeterminate time in the future if facilitated by large technological advances, but we're nowhere near that now.

  On 2/8/2016 at 8:00 PM, Gocab said:

yeah socialism is hell, just look at how terrible the scandinavian countries are doing.

they're not actually that socialist.

No, but way more socialist than anyone from the democratic party could ever hope to be.

  On 2/8/2016 at 8:33 PM, Gocab said:

No, but way more socialist than anyone from the democratic party could ever hope to be.

only in terms of certain things, they're probably more principled free marketeers than anyone in america, when it comes to fiscal policy and such.

it also helps that they're small countries, socialism only gets worse the larger scales it gets deployed at.

  On 2/8/2016 at 8:11 PM, caze said:

there's very little actual socialism in europe btw, if that's what you're hinting at, we're mostly capitalist with the odd bit of socialism thrown in here and there. but socialism is alive and well in many places outside of europe, and it's just as bad now there as it's always been.

 

I'm not against pragmatic application of minimal amounts of socialism where necessary btw, I'm not a libertarian or anything. But primarily governments should be small, local, and not interfere with markets too much (aside from banking and preventing monopolies and price fixing cartels, i.e. protecting the freedom of the market - something which hasn't been done a lot recently).

 

...

  On 2/8/2016 at 8:00 PM, Gocab said:

yeah socialism is hell, just look at how terrible the scandinavian countries are doing.

 

they're not actually that socialist.

I'm wondering what this "actual socialism" is that is hardly present in Europe. And I really don't agree with presenting socialism and capitalism as opposing ideologies. Not necessarily your thing, I know, as Limpster brought it up. But, imo it's really unproductive to view it as such. Socialism and libertarianism are more natural opposing forces. Which your post already implied as well, obviously.

Another point is the thing about governments being small, local and not interfering with markets too much. Although I do understand the desire to minimise the proverbial red tape, the 'solution' is not to keep governments small and local. To be honest, that sounds more like remixing talking-points made by those lovely corporations which are out to maximise short term profits. It'd be really stupid to localise governments in a world with global corporations which present bigger economies than the average country. It doesn't take much for corporations to become more powerful than local governments. The more local the governments are, the more powerful the corporations, I'd argue.

Lets find some middle ground in the idea that governments should be optimised wrt the world they live in, such that democratic principles are protected (wrt the markets, and individual people). Sometimes that means making international laws possible (think about climate change and the way corporations pay their taxes) and other times that means keeping things local. It's not an either or thing. (which I'm sure you weren't trying to argue) Whatever is good from a democratic point of view, I guess.

Or lets argue that markets can't exist without some kind of regulation. And that the size of the market should be similar to the size of the government which regulates it. Read: global markets require (some kind of) global governments.

Whether or not europe is socialist is a bit of a strawman, imo. If you (anyone) want to talk about organising healthcare and whether or not there is a place for a market, fine, there's a discussion. Minimum wages? Sure, another discussion. Implementing policies wrt fossile fuels another example. And the list goes on and on...obv.

There's a huge wall of ignorance built around the word socialism, attempting to dismiss it as a form of gub'ment (full stop), moreover one that is incompatible with freedom (cuz Mericuh loves it's freedom!) and democracy.

I can make the same exact statement about socialism in the U.S. as you did about Europe, i.e., that we're mostly capitalist with a sprinkling of socialism - the Postal Service, public broadcasting, public transit and transportation, etc. Unfortunately we've let a particularly virulent strain of hypercapitalism infect society in places where it's been fantastic for those profit(eer)ing - politics, education, health care - but hugely detrimental to the plebeian masses. I'm pretty sure that in my entire lifetime the average American's costs for health care and higher education have outpaced inflation year on year, without fail, and by large margins. And until recently the political establishment could just say "dur hur we're not raising taxes woohoo" all the while the slices of your paycheck pie devoted to these frivolities goes up (hint: if it's something you can't live without to be a productive member of society, it's a tax). Total student loan debt in this country exceeds $1 trillion, and now corporations are people and hamburgers eat diabeetus.

  On 2/8/2016 at 3:54 PM, acroyear said:

http://giphy.com/gifs/117t2N1cJTtO7u?ref=fbc

lil

Historically, Libertarianism wasn't at all what it is today. In fact,i t kinda meant the opposite of what it means today. (much like "republican", "democrat", "conservative" etc)

The Libertarian ethos used to essentially be "no god, no master" and wasn't merely an obsession do with de-regulation and not wanting to pay taxes. And it certainly wasn't the ideological opposite of Socialism (although there were different strains that fell along the left/right spectrum). In fact, the whole "no master" bit had as much to do with wage labor as it did with the government.

Economically-speaking, "Libertarianism" these days means "extreme-right free market advocate", at least in America. As Chomsky and many others have pointed out, this is essentially a call for Corporate Tyranny. The idea that completely-unfettered markets would be good for the average person is a truly insane delusion. Such a world would look like Neuromancer or Snow Crash.

  On 2/8/2016 at 9:52 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

There's a huge wall of ignorance built around the word socialism

programming, innit.

https://youtu.be/P_9If6S65CQ

  On 2/8/2016 at 9:41 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 2/8/2016 at 8:11 PM, caze said:

there's very little actual socialism in europe btw, if that's what you're hinting at, we're mostly capitalist with the odd bit of socialism thrown in here and there. but socialism is alive and well in many places outside of europe, and it's just as bad now there as it's always been.

 

I'm not against pragmatic application of minimal amounts of socialism where necessary btw, I'm not a libertarian or anything. But primarily governments should be small, local, and not interfere with markets too much (aside from banking and preventing monopolies and price fixing cartels, i.e. protecting the freedom of the market - something which hasn't been done a lot recently).

 

...

  On 2/8/2016 at 8:00 PM, Gocab said:

yeah socialism is hell, just look at how terrible the scandinavian countries are doing.

 

they're not actually that socialist.

 

I'm wondering what this "actual socialism" is that is hardly present in Europe. And I really don't agree with presenting socialism and capitalism as opposing ideologies. Not necessarily your thing, I know, as Limpster brought it up. But, imo it's really unproductive to view it as such. Socialism and libertarianism are more natural opposing forces. Which your post already implied as well, obviously.

 

Another point is the thing about governments being small, local and not interfering with markets too much. Although I do understand the desire to minimise the proverbial red tape, the 'solution' is not to keep governments small and local. To be honest, that sounds more like remixing talking-points made by those lovely corporations which are out to maximise short term profits. It'd be really stupid to localise governments in a world with global corporations which present bigger economies than the average country. It doesn't take much for corporations to become more powerful than local governments. The more local the governments are, the more powerful the corporations, I'd argue.

 

Lets find some middle ground in the idea that governments should be optimised wrt the world they live in, such that democratic principles are protected (wrt the markets, and individual people). Sometimes that means making international laws possible (think about climate change and the way corporations pay their taxes) and other times that means keeping things local. It's not an either or thing. (which I'm sure you weren't trying to argue) Whatever is good from a democratic point of view, I guess.

 

Or lets argue that markets can't exist without some kind of regulation. And that the size of the market should be similar to the size of the government which regulates it. Read: global markets require (some kind of) global governments.

 

Whether or not europe is socialist is a bit of a strawman, imo. If you (anyone) want to talk about organising healthcare and whether or not there is a place for a market, fine, there's a discussion. Minimum wages? Sure, another discussion. Implementing policies wrt fossile fuels another example. And the list goes on and on...obv.

 

I wrote a great big long reply to this, solved all of the world's problems and everything, then my fucking computer restarted to install a fucking update.

Lol someone said free market.

  On 2/9/2016 at 12:28 AM, caze said:

 

  On 2/8/2016 at 9:41 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 2/8/2016 at 8:11 PM, caze said:

there's very little actual socialism in europe btw, if that's what you're hinting at, we're mostly capitalist with the odd bit of socialism thrown in here and there. but socialism is alive and well in many places outside of europe, and it's just as bad now there as it's always been.

 

I'm not against pragmatic application of minimal amounts of socialism where necessary btw, I'm not a libertarian or anything. But primarily governments should be small, local, and not interfere with markets too much (aside from banking and preventing monopolies and price fixing cartels, i.e. protecting the freedom of the market - something which hasn't been done a lot recently).

 

...

  On 2/8/2016 at 8:00 PM, Gocab said:

yeah socialism is hell, just look at how terrible the scandinavian countries are doing.

 

they're not actually that socialist.

 

I'm wondering what this "actual socialism" is that is hardly present in Europe. And I really don't agree with presenting socialism and capitalism as opposing ideologies. Not necessarily your thing, I know, as Limpster brought it up. But, imo it's really unproductive to view it as such. Socialism and libertarianism are more natural opposing forces. Which your post already implied as well, obviously.

 

Another point is the thing about governments being small, local and not interfering with markets too much. Although I do understand the desire to minimise the proverbial red tape, the 'solution' is not to keep governments small and local. To be honest, that sounds more like remixing talking-points made by those lovely corporations which are out to maximise short term profits. It'd be really stupid to localise governments in a world with global corporations which present bigger economies than the average country. It doesn't take much for corporations to become more powerful than local governments. The more local the governments are, the more powerful the corporations, I'd argue.

 

Lets find some middle ground in the idea that governments should be optimised wrt the world they live in, such that democratic principles are protected (wrt the markets, and individual people). Sometimes that means making international laws possible (think about climate change and the way corporations pay their taxes) and other times that means keeping things local. It's not an either or thing. (which I'm sure you weren't trying to argue) Whatever is good from a democratic point of view, I guess.

 

Or lets argue that markets can't exist without some kind of regulation. And that the size of the market should be similar to the size of the government which regulates it. Read: global markets require (some kind of) global governments.

 

Whether or not europe is socialist is a bit of a strawman, imo. If you (anyone) want to talk about organising healthcare and whether or not there is a place for a market, fine, there's a discussion. Minimum wages? Sure, another discussion. Implementing policies wrt fossile fuels another example. And the list goes on and on...obv.

 

 

I wrote a great big long reply to this, solved all of the world's problems and everything, then my fucking computer restarted to install a fucking update.

 

 

wouldn't have happened in a socialist system.

in a socialist system everyone's computers would restart at the same time, and it would take three hours.

  On 2/9/2016 at 12:46 AM, caze said:

in a socialist system everyone's computers would restart at the same time, and it would take three hours.

Why do you think that?

Ugh the literalism is strong in this one.