Topic: If toothless MAGA hillbillies didn't want the DSA communists to take over the Democrat party...
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #136,764
...then the Trump regime shouldn't have gloated so much about AI taking over white collar labor while doing fuckall for citizens, cutting welfare programs and USAID, fucking over college students, declaring retarded fuckass wars and putting AI Flock cameras on every block. Thanks.(Edited 1 minute later.)
boof joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #1,451,127
the name of the party that you are thinking of is not Democrat Party. That's like saying Republic Party, or Libertari Party.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,133
@previous (boof)
Way to address the core of the argument instead of being a pedantic fucktard.
Way to address the core of the argument instead of being a pedantic fucktard.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 48 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,136
@previous (A)
> Way to address the core of the argument instead of being a pedantic fucktard.
hey there, you are the dipshit who can't even learn the name of a major political party in preparation for your fucking thread.
> Way to address the core of the argument instead of being a pedantic fucktard.
hey there, you are the dipshit who can't even learn the name of a major political party in preparation for your fucking thread.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,137
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,139
what's with the Grand Nagus
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,140
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,141
did you know that if a man has enough concentration, he can will himself to walk half of his atoms out of himself, thusly producing two of himself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlN3O8kEkc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlN3O8kEkc
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,144
@1,451,133 (A)
> Way to address the core of the argument instead of being a pedantic fucktard.
You fucked yourself dumbass
> Way to address the core of the argument instead of being a pedantic fucktard.
You fucked yourself dumbass
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,151
are you threatening to vote for communists unless you get something for free?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RBYsQE4Pxb4&ra=m
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,157
Maybe don't spend $100K to read books at college that are available for free at the library.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,163
@1,451,133 (A)
I mean I get your point but if you’re gonna make a case to provide a critique you gotta at least have well thought out arguments and counter arguments prepared otherwise it’s easy for people on here to simply dismiss and be pedantic because what you wrote reads as emotional rather than factual.
Remember “facts over feelings”. Thats the name of the game if you want your point to be taken seriously.
I mean I get your point but if you’re gonna make a case to provide a critique you gotta at least have well thought out arguments and counter arguments prepared otherwise it’s easy for people on here to simply dismiss and be pedantic because what you wrote reads as emotional rather than factual.
Remember “facts over feelings”. Thats the name of the game if you want your point to be taken seriously.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,164
Matt is a damn toothless hillbilly!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 9 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,203
@1,451,136 (boof)
I suppose the material conditions, medicaid cuts and mass layoffs can be ignored because of a typo. Why didn't anyone tell that to the voters of Michigan and New York City?
@1,451,151 (E)
Taxing a megacorporate's AI labor doesn't rob a single human of the fruits of their own labor.
I suppose the material conditions, medicaid cuts and mass layoffs can be ignored because of a typo. Why didn't anyone tell that to the voters of Michigan and New York City?
@1,451,151 (E)
Taxing a megacorporate's AI labor doesn't rob a single human of the fruits of their own labor.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 18 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,204
@OP
what the fuck are you niggling about back there?
what the fuck are you niggling about back there?
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 5 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,239
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 16 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,244
@1,451,157 (F)
lol the fact that you think college involved just "reading books" shows that you have never been
lol the fact that you think college involved just "reading books" shows that you have never been
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,297
@previous (C)
For me this is what college involves:
1. I get out of bed
2. I show up at the lecture hall
3. I open my laptop
4. I type notes while the professor explains how computers work
5. I head back
6. I write code on a computer
7. Repeat
For me this is what college involves:
1. I get out of bed
2. I show up at the lecture hall
3. I open my laptop
4. I type notes while the professor explains how computers work
5. I head back
6. I write code on a computer
7. Repeat
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 53 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,298
Sometimes if you’re lucky you get a class with no attendance requirement and recorded lectures. In which case you can go to class if you feel like it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 month ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,299
So I feel like the book insult is outdated. They need to update that insult to the 21st century.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,301
@1,451,244 (C)
I've been to college, and nothing about it justifies the price tag.
There are tests, but that can be done with with practice tests at the back of a book or a web based tester. Both are essentially free. Khan Academy has math practice tests that keep track of everything you've learned, and have you retake tests you atruggled with.
Coursera and EdX have courses created by the big name universities, even with sections to talk with others taking the class.
Some courses have labs that aren't easy to do outside the college, but these are often a small part of the course and you can get the same info watching videos, you don't need to physically mix chemicals together to get the knowledge from a chem course.
This attitude that you can't replace college with a library or MOOC is just cope from people that wasted their money and want to feel superior. There are a lot of ways to get an education.
If I had to do it all over I wouldn't pay for it myself, there are a lot of employers that will reimburse you. I'd still get the degree, not because it's a good way to learn (many profs don't even speak english well) but because the people hiring and promoting put weight on it, and you have to play the game the way it exists, people in power are all boomers who grew up before modern educational options.
I've been to college, and nothing about it justifies the price tag.
There are tests, but that can be done with with practice tests at the back of a book or a web based tester. Both are essentially free. Khan Academy has math practice tests that keep track of everything you've learned, and have you retake tests you atruggled with.
Coursera and EdX have courses created by the big name universities, even with sections to talk with others taking the class.
Some courses have labs that aren't easy to do outside the college, but these are often a small part of the course and you can get the same info watching videos, you don't need to physically mix chemicals together to get the knowledge from a chem course.
This attitude that you can't replace college with a library or MOOC is just cope from people that wasted their money and want to feel superior. There are a lot of ways to get an education.
If I had to do it all over I wouldn't pay for it myself, there are a lot of employers that will reimburse you. I'd still get the degree, not because it's a good way to learn (many profs don't even speak english well) but because the people hiring and promoting put weight on it, and you have to play the game the way it exists, people in power are all boomers who grew up before modern educational options.
(Edited 39 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,302
@previous (K)
I think that two things can be true at the same time, there’s the question of whether or not college is worth anything and the question of whether it’s worth what they charge you. The first answer is yes and the second is no.
I think that two things can be true at the same time, there’s the question of whether or not college is worth anything and the question of whether it’s worth what they charge you. The first answer is yes and the second is no.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,304
One interesting problem though, which is actually similar to economics is there are some countries where they don’t charge tuition because it’s payed for by taxes, but the issue with that is if every college is free, then you don’t have the same elitism that the United States has. Which has the disadvantage of the United States has every prestigious schools that are almost impossible to get into, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc. But in some European countries they don’t have equivalents to that. It’s sort of similar to how in economics there’s a trade off between equality and efficiency. Socialism ensures everyone is equal, but if everyone is equal, then maybe you don’t have anyone with enough money that they can start a business with a high barrier to entry. But in capitalism, everyone isn’t equal, but someone is wealthy enough to start those high barrier to entry businesses that might improve the total output of the economy. So there’s a tradeoff between equality and efficiency (efficiency is just total economic output). In education, it’s similar. If you make education free, you get rid of unfair elitism, and you don’t have a few institutions with vastly more wealth and resources, you don’t have that cutting edge research.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,305
@1,451,299 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
There are web courses for learning CS. Many programmers are self-taught.
What do colleges offer over content available for free on the web?
Not lectures, you can watch entire CS courses for free from top universities.
Not testing, those web courses will give you a terminal to try the exercises.
Not personal instruction, I took CS and getting 1-on-1 time for officers hours was tight and you didn't get long.
Everyone is starting at the assumption it's worth it, and looking for reasons why. But it's all about justifying the decision post-hoc, because they don't want to feel they were scammed.
Talking about this with people is like convincing them their multi-level marketing business isn't a good idea. People get mad fast. And this is my experience talking to people on person, people that know I got my bachelor's years ago.
There are web courses for learning CS. Many programmers are self-taught.
What do colleges offer over content available for free on the web?
Not lectures, you can watch entire CS courses for free from top universities.
Not testing, those web courses will give you a terminal to try the exercises.
Not personal instruction, I took CS and getting 1-on-1 time for officers hours was tight and you didn't get long.
Everyone is starting at the assumption it's worth it, and looking for reasons why. But it's all about justifying the decision post-hoc, because they don't want to feel they were scammed.
Talking about this with people is like convincing them their multi-level marketing business isn't a good idea. People get mad fast. And this is my experience talking to people on person, people that know I got my bachelor's years ago.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,307
@previous (K)
I’m self taught. But the information I’ve gotten in college is vastly superior to what I was able to just do myself on the internet. In college it’s really, really in depth.
I’m self taught. But the information I’ve gotten in college is vastly superior to what I was able to just do myself on the internet. In college it’s really, really in depth.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,308
The other thing is different universities in the US really aren’t equal. If you look at the courses offered at schools that are "ranked" higher nationally, they’ll offer AI related courses other universities don’t. It does matter on some level, but it’s not the end all and be all. Both things can be true simultaneously.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,309
Some schools also have more opportunities for students who want to start companies.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,310
@1,451,307 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I don't doubt it, but I'm sure all of it could have been got from MOOCs, or a thick textbook you could check out for free too.
@1,451,308 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Sure, so if I take a course made by one of those top universities in CS and pass, isn't that better than a local college course taught by someone with bad english skills that might be outdated?
Yet I wouldn't get college credit for the top university course, but I would for the outdated course at the local college.
Education is important, but credits and degrees don't reflect the quality of the course or the dedication of the student. It's just something that you'd have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
I don't doubt it, but I'm sure all of it could have been got from MOOCs, or a thick textbook you could check out for free too.
@1,451,308 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Sure, so if I take a course made by one of those top universities in CS and pass, isn't that better than a local college course taught by someone with bad english skills that might be outdated?
Yet I wouldn't get college credit for the top university course, but I would for the outdated course at the local college.
Education is important, but credits and degrees don't reflect the quality of the course or the dedication of the student. It's just something that you'd have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
Anonymous K double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,311
@1,451,309 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but internship placement is probably the only good reason I can think of that would make formal college worth it.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but internship placement is probably the only good reason I can think of that would make formal college worth it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,312
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,314
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yes, that's true, but that's probably 1% of people going to college today.
The average person is taking out a huge loan for information that was available outside the college.
The time spent paying tuition (and interest!) back would be better spent self-studying or finding relevant groups to join for free.
Not always, of course. Those internships of VC attention are real. But getting more value out than you put in seems to be the rare exception from what I've seen, and my friends were mostly upper middle class.
I have a lot of respect for the people that made their own way, networking at free events, building their own business and getting funding from local banks, or just worked their way up in a trade.
Yes, that's true, but that's probably 1% of people going to college today.
The average person is taking out a huge loan for information that was available outside the college.
The time spent paying tuition (and interest!) back would be better spent self-studying or finding relevant groups to join for free.
Not always, of course. Those internships of VC attention are real. But getting more value out than you put in seems to be the rare exception from what I've seen, and my friends were mostly upper middle class.
I have a lot of respect for the people that made their own way, networking at free events, building their own business and getting funding from local banks, or just worked their way up in a trade.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,315
@previous (K)
I think I sort of half agree with you. I agree that college is more expensive than it should be, but I think the solution is government regulation. I’m not saying we should necessarily make college completely free, but if we could reduce the cost by 50%, I think in a democracy it’s important to have an educated populace. And trades are also necessary for the functioning of society. I guess I just think not everyone wants to or should do the same thing, but the opportunity should be there for anyone if they want it and are capable.
I think I sort of half agree with you. I agree that college is more expensive than it should be, but I think the solution is government regulation. I’m not saying we should necessarily make college completely free, but if we could reduce the cost by 50%, I think in a democracy it’s important to have an educated populace. And trades are also necessary for the functioning of society. I guess I just think not everyone wants to or should do the same thing, but the opportunity should be there for anyone if they want it and are capable.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,316
@1,451,314 (K)
> internships of VC
I meant it sort of the other way around. I didn’t mean going to college to intern in venture capital, I meant that some schools are targeted more by venture capitalists because they’ve been known to produce successful tech companies in the past.
> internships of VC
I meant it sort of the other way around. I didn’t mean going to college to intern in venture capital, I meant that some schools are targeted more by venture capitalists because they’ve been known to produce successful tech companies in the past.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,317
@1,451,315 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I agree with that, people do better in an environment designed around learning, and society is better off when people can learn things that aren't just vocational.
I'm only really talking about our current system. I see people who like learning forgo education and activites to pay back loans, and it seems like college had a negative effect on their education.
I think we just have a really twisted system the way it is now. I really like sitting in the quad and talking about assignments with friends, MOOCs can't replace that.
I agree with that, people do better in an environment designed around learning, and society is better off when people can learn things that aren't just vocational.
I'm only really talking about our current system. I see people who like learning forgo education and activites to pay back loans, and it seems like college had a negative effect on their education.
I think we just have a really twisted system the way it is now. I really like sitting in the quad and talking about assignments with friends, MOOCs can't replace that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,318
@previous (K)
I think in the past, at least for Americans who were white (because of Jim Crow laws in the past), following World War Two, there was a period of time that’s sort of idealized because America was 40% of the world economy, produced everything, and everybody could have their own house and family, even if you were just a factory worker making cars.
I think in the past, at least for Americans who were white (because of Jim Crow laws in the past), following World War Two, there was a period of time that’s sort of idealized because America was 40% of the world economy, produced everything, and everybody could have their own house and family, even if you were just a factory worker making cars.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,320
I do think though, part of why there was that period when things were simple in terms of, you could follow clear cut advice and be successful as an average person who isn’t extraordinary in any particular way, was partially because the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII and the US wasn’t so we didn’t have any industrial competition, so we just dominated in everything easily, because nobody else was in a position to challenge us economically.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,321
And idk, I think we haven’t really accepted or adapted to that reality somehow.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,322
@1,451,318 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,451,320 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
This theory has one major flaw.
The per-capita GDP of that time was less than today, even after you account for inflation.
Everyone in America could be richer today than back then, the only reason it's not the case is that inequality has increased.
If you compare real GDP per capita, it's more than 4x higher today
@1,451,320 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
This theory has one major flaw.
The per-capita GDP of that time was less than today, even after you account for inflation.
Everyone in America could be richer today than back then, the only reason it's not the case is that inequality has increased.
If you compare real GDP per capita, it's more than 4x higher today
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,323
I mean, even if you look at Europe, we consider them to be developed now, and people know that European countries had massive empires in the past, but every European empire almost entirely stopped existing after World War Two because they just went bankrupt.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,324
@1,451,322 (K)
That’s true, but you know, you can’t miss what you never had to begin with. Nobody in the 1940s was sad everybody didn’t have a smartphone in their pocket because they never thought about it in the first place. Wealth is relative. Like for example, for most of human existence, people didn’t live in large civilizations, they lived in small hunter gatherer tribes. If you live in a small hunter gatherer tribe, you don’t have any money, but if you never knew what a city was because they didn’t exist, you would live your entire life never feeling poor, because you never saw anybody with more than you. But now, we consider people who live in tribal societies or less technologically developed societies to be poor. But part of it is psychological.
That’s true, but you know, you can’t miss what you never had to begin with. Nobody in the 1940s was sad everybody didn’t have a smartphone in their pocket because they never thought about it in the first place. Wealth is relative. Like for example, for most of human existence, people didn’t live in large civilizations, they lived in small hunter gatherer tribes. If you live in a small hunter gatherer tribe, you don’t have any money, but if you never knew what a city was because they didn’t exist, you would live your entire life never feeling poor, because you never saw anybody with more than you. But now, we consider people who live in tribal societies or less technologically developed societies to be poor. But part of it is psychological.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 month ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,325
Because money actually is psychological. It doesn’t matter if it’s fiat currency. Why is gold valuable? Excluding some modern technical applications of gold, what can the average person do with gold that doesn’t involve trading it that’s actually good for anything? Not much.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,326
If you think about currency and government, they seem like they have power, but their power only exists by virtue of everyone believing that they have power. If nobody thinks you’re the president, then you’re not the president and you have no power because nobody listens to you.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,327
@1,451,324 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Sure, but my point is that everyone in the US today could have the life of a post-WW2 factory worker if we didn't have higher inequality.
If inequality stayed at the same level, the average worker would be 4x wealthier today than back then.
Instead people have half as much wealth when you consider how long it takes them to buy a house, pay for college, or see a doctor.
Add that together and people are about 8x off where they should be.
A lot of people will say what you did, as if this is inevitable and just how it has to be. Adapt, because there's less to go around. And that's a problem, because there's a lot more to go around, but no one will fight for it if they think that wealth isn't here already.
Sure, but my point is that everyone in the US today could have the life of a post-WW2 factory worker if we didn't have higher inequality.
If inequality stayed at the same level, the average worker would be 4x wealthier today than back then.
Instead people have half as much wealth when you consider how long it takes them to buy a house, pay for college, or see a doctor.
Add that together and people are about 8x off where they should be.
A lot of people will say what you did, as if this is inevitable and just how it has to be. Adapt, because there's less to go around. And that's a problem, because there's a lot more to go around, but no one will fight for it if they think that wealth isn't here already.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous K double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,328
@1,451,325 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm not talking about just fiat money, that's why I said inflation-adjusted.
We should look at actual wealth produced, not the currency used to trade it.
There is 4x as much overall produced, but people have less. That isn't currency (we adjusted this out), it's the actual products.
I'm not talking about just fiat money, that's why I said inflation-adjusted.
We should look at actual wealth produced, not the currency used to trade it.
There is 4x as much overall produced, but people have less. That isn't currency (we adjusted this out), it's the actual products.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,329
@1,451,327 (K)
There’s an argument that some level of inflation is actually good because it forces people to work harder, spend their money now, and not save. It’s not just an accident that things are the way they are. What’s bad for the individual might be good for the power of the collective.
There’s an argument that some level of inflation is actually good because it forces people to work harder, spend their money now, and not save. It’s not just an accident that things are the way they are. What’s bad for the individual might be good for the power of the collective.
Anonymous J double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,330
For example, if you want to produce high tech weapons to maintain a military superpower, that might inform certain decisions one might make about what to prioritize.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,331
@1,451,329 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yes, that is done for a good reason, to increase the velocity of money.
I'm not talking about that, though.
I'm saying that inequality itself has increased, and that isn't a necessary byproduct of inflation.
Wages could also be adjusted for inflation. The incentive to spend instead of save can still be there with the fed targetting inflation, but people wouldn't have a wage decrease each year because it's autoadjusted.
I'm solely referring to what you said about America post-WW2 vs today. The premise is that there is less wealth to go around, and that premise is incorrect. There is about 4x as much to go around today, but people still have less than back then.
Yes, that is done for a good reason, to increase the velocity of money.
I'm not talking about that, though.
I'm saying that inequality itself has increased, and that isn't a necessary byproduct of inflation.
Wages could also be adjusted for inflation. The incentive to spend instead of save can still be there with the fed targetting inflation, but people wouldn't have a wage decrease each year because it's autoadjusted.
I'm solely referring to what you said about America post-WW2 vs today. The premise is that there is less wealth to go around, and that premise is incorrect. There is about 4x as much to go around today, but people still have less than back then.
Anonymous J replied with this 1 month ago, 31 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,332
If you don’t have a population advantage, how are you going to win?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,333
@1,451,331 (K)
The premise wasn’t necessarily that there’s less wealth to go around. The premise is more that we used to be wealthier compared to the rest of the world than we are now.
The premise wasn’t necessarily that there’s less wealth to go around. The premise is more that we used to be wealthier compared to the rest of the world than we are now.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,334
The GDP of the US went up, the percentage of the world economy that is the US GDP went down, because the US economy grew, but the world economy grew faster. So now from our position, we feel like we lost power, even though we got wealthier.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,335
@1,451,333 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Sure, that's true. America's share of world GDP is a smaller % today.
But here's something you said:
> everybody could have their own house and family, even if you were just a factory worker making cars.
This implies that we could have that back then, but not today.
But it's not true, we could have that today as well. Everyone could have a home and family today. In fact, it should be much easier.
The reason people can't afford a home, despite the fact that there is more wealth today, is that inequality has increased. If it wasn't for that, people would be able to afford much larger homes and families.
Sure, that's true. America's share of world GDP is a smaller % today.
But here's something you said:
> everybody could have their own house and family, even if you were just a factory worker making cars.
This implies that we could have that back then, but not today.
But it's not true, we could have that today as well. Everyone could have a home and family today. In fact, it should be much easier.
The reason people can't afford a home, despite the fact that there is more wealth today, is that inequality has increased. If it wasn't for that, people would be able to afford much larger homes and families.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,336
In 1960 for example, we were 40% of the world economy. What state was China in back in the year 1960? Now what state is China in? And China isn’t going to be the last part of the non-western world to develop. China has 1.4 billion people, India has 1.4 billion people, Africa has 1.5 billion people now, by the time it stops growing it will have 3.8 billion people. If India rapidly industrializes in the mid 21st century in the way that China did and then African countries do as well either towards the end of this century or the beginning of the next, our slice of the pie gets smaller even if we get richer.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,337
@1,451,334 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Why would that mean everyone could afford a home back then, but not today?
Why would that mean everyone could afford a home back then, but not today?
Anonymous K double-posted this 1 month ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,338
@1,451,336 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
How does China getting wealthier stop someone from buying a home today in America?
America has more wealth to build homes, and better technology to use to do so.
How does China getting wealthier stop someone from buying a home today in America?
America has more wealth to build homes, and better technology to use to do so.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,339
@1,451,335 (K)
Wealth inequality has increased. If you look at the top income tax bracket in the 1950s compared to today that explains a lot.
Wealth inequality has increased. If you look at the top income tax bracket in the 1950s compared to today that explains a lot.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,340
@1,451,338 (K)
It doesn’t, it makes Americans richer if China is richer because trade is mutually beneficial. The same way it would make America richer if Africa was richer. But the thing is right, look at American history. We split off from the British Empire and retained slavery. There’s a deep rooted part of our culture that affects our psychology.
It doesn’t, it makes Americans richer if China is richer because trade is mutually beneficial. The same way it would make America richer if Africa was richer. But the thing is right, look at American history. We split off from the British Empire and retained slavery. There’s a deep rooted part of our culture that affects our psychology.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 55 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,341
@1,451,339 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Sure, so why mention the post-WW2 economy and the current economy, and act like that's why people can't afford homes if you know that?
And look, we've had this conversation before: https://minichan.net/topic/133516
Sure, so why mention the post-WW2 economy and the current economy, and act like that's why people can't afford homes if you know that?
And look, we've had this conversation before: https://minichan.net/topic/133516
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,342
@previous (K)
Well if you don’t want me to mention history at all, how am I supposed to know if what I’m saying is right if I’m not comparing it to anything that happened previously in history? I could just say stuff but if it’s not grounded in anything, it’s just speculation.
Well if you don’t want me to mention history at all, how am I supposed to know if what I’m saying is right if I’m not comparing it to anything that happened previously in history? I could just say stuff but if it’s not grounded in anything, it’s just speculation.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,343
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,344
@1,451,342 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
If you say that America had an economic advantage then, say that Americans could afford families back then, and then say they just need to adapt today without once attributing it to inequality... it seems like you think there is less to go around.
If you knew it was simply inequality, why frame it as the loss of advantage and never mention inequality?
If you say that America had an economic advantage then, say that Americans could afford families back then, and then say they just need to adapt today without once attributing it to inequality... it seems like you think there is less to go around.
If you knew it was simply inequality, why frame it as the loss of advantage and never mention inequality?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 4 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,345
In computer science actually, when a program branches, the CPU might need to access different parts of memory depending on which path it takes. And CPUs cache memory for higher performance. So you can speed up your program a lot if you already have cached what you’re going to use next. But one way computers actually speed up processing by a lot, is branch prediction, and one of the simplest forms of branch prediction is one bit branch prediction where you just assume what happens next time is what happened last time. It’s not always right but it’s right more than it’s wrong.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,346
@1,451,344 (K)
No I acknowledge that there’s more wealth inequality today. That doesn’t change the fact that Americans in the 50s felt like America was wealthier compared to the rest of the world than Americans do today. Wealth inequality is another part of the equation, but it’s not a contradiction by itself.
No I acknowledge that there’s more wealth inequality today. That doesn’t change the fact that Americans in the 50s felt like America was wealthier compared to the rest of the world than Americans do today. Wealth inequality is another part of the equation, but it’s not a contradiction by itself.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,347
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,348
@1,451,346 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
But you literally said "because" of America losing that temporary post-WW2 advantage ordinary americans can't afford a home and need to adapt to reality.
You don't attribute it to inequality until after I point it out, before that you are clearly parroting the false notion that it's because we lost that advantage:
@1,451,320 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> I do think though, part of why there was that period when things were simple in terms of, you could follow clear cut advice and be successful as an average person who isn’t extraordinary in any particular way, was partially because the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII and the US wasn’t so we didn’t have any industrial competition, so we just dominated in everything easily, because nobody else was in a position to challenge us economically.
@1,451,321 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> And idk, I think we haven’t really accepted or adapted to that reality somehow.
But you literally said "because" of America losing that temporary post-WW2 advantage ordinary americans can't afford a home and need to adapt to reality.
You don't attribute it to inequality until after I point it out, before that you are clearly parroting the false notion that it's because we lost that advantage:
@1,451,320 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> I do think though, part of why there was that period when things were simple in terms of, you could follow clear cut advice and be successful as an average person who isn’t extraordinary in any particular way, was partially because the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII and the US wasn’t so we didn’t have any industrial competition, so we just dominated in everything easily, because nobody else was in a position to challenge us economically.
@1,451,321 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> And idk, I think we haven’t really accepted or adapted to that reality somehow.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,349
@previous (K)
Yes. Wealth inequality isn’t a contradiction to that.
@1,451,339 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> Wealth inequality has increased. If you look at the top income tax bracket in the 1950s compared to today that explains a lot.
Both are the result of World War Two, it doesn’t change anything.
Yes. Wealth inequality isn’t a contradiction to that.
@1,451,339 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> Wealth inequality has increased. If you look at the top income tax bracket in the 1950s compared to today that explains a lot.
Both are the result of World War Two, it doesn’t change anything.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,351
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Sure, but it needs to be pointed out that it's because of inequality not because there's less wealth. A lot of people think that it's just a material reality that there is less wealth.
If Americans had pressured politicians to create the right policy, we could have maintained the lifestyles from back then until today.
People don't demand it, because citizens think it's economically impossible, but it would be easier to do today than it was back then.
Beliefs about why the problem exists impacts how willing people are to fight for it. No one is showing up to protest if they think the demand isn't materially feasible.
Sure, but it needs to be pointed out that it's because of inequality not because there's less wealth. A lot of people think that it's just a material reality that there is less wealth.
If Americans had pressured politicians to create the right policy, we could have maintained the lifestyles from back then until today.
People don't demand it, because citizens think it's economically impossible, but it would be easier to do today than it was back then.
Beliefs about why the problem exists impacts how willing people are to fight for it. No one is showing up to protest if they think the demand isn't materially feasible.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,352
During World War Two, when the existence of the country is at stake, people who don’t want to be taxed will be quiet. And following WWII was the Cold War. Taxes on the wealthy were much higher and there was less wealth inequality.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,353
@1,451,351 (K)
Well there’s inequality inside the US and then inequality in the world. If you look at global inequality, the world was more unequal back then, which made Americans feel wealthier.
Well there’s inequality inside the US and then inequality in the world. If you look at global inequality, the world was more unequal back then, which made Americans feel wealthier.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,354
For example, if you google "map of Africa 1945"Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,355
Or a graph of US vs Chinese GDP over timeMr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,356
Or pictures of London after WWIIMr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,357
Or pictures of Tokyo after WWIIMr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc septuple-posted this 1 month ago, 54 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,358
Then compare all that to the United States.There’s a reason why Americans felt like they were on top of the world back then.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,359
@1,451,353 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Sure, but being able to afford a home isn't a feeling.
A lot of people feel poor because their parents could buy a home, but they can't. That isn't about the rise of China, it's a simple observation that the regular person in the US has less than previous generations.
People shouldn't just adapt or accept that new reality, they should be demanding their politicians fix it or explain it.
We can still have an economy where everyone has a home. People can't avoid a land tax on second homes, because they can't pack up the land and leave. If they choose to sell instead of paying the tax, that makes housing more affordable for those looking for their first home.
It's a simple problem to solve. Accepting it as reality is the worst thing people could do.
Sure, but being able to afford a home isn't a feeling.
A lot of people feel poor because their parents could buy a home, but they can't. That isn't about the rise of China, it's a simple observation that the regular person in the US has less than previous generations.
People shouldn't just adapt or accept that new reality, they should be demanding their politicians fix it or explain it.
We can still have an economy where everyone has a home. People can't avoid a land tax on second homes, because they can't pack up the land and leave. If they choose to sell instead of paying the tax, that makes housing more affordable for those looking for their first home.
It's a simple problem to solve. Accepting it as reality is the worst thing people could do.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,360
@previous (K)
Both the inequality within the United States and the perception of the relative status of the United States are both connected to World War Two.
Both the inequality within the United States and the perception of the relative status of the United States are both connected to World War Two.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,361
I mean just think about who our allies and trading partners are. That entire thing is the result of WWII.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,362
@1,451,360 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yes, but when I hear people talk about not being able to afford a home they aren't talking about China or Africa, they are sharing stories of how their parents bought one.
Yes, but when I hear people talk about not being able to afford a home they aren't talking about China or Africa, they are sharing stories of how their parents bought one.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,363
@previous (K)
Right, but there was less wealth inequality in America following World War Two because the United States raised income taxes significantly and kept them high due to paying off debt from fighting World War Two and paying for the Cold War.
Right, but there was less wealth inequality in America following World War Two because the United States raised income taxes significantly and kept them high due to paying off debt from fighting World War Two and paying for the Cold War.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,364
Like, I’m not saying we couldn’t just raise taxes like that today, I’m saying the reason why the government could get away with that is because we were fighting an existential war and people thought if we lost we wouldn’t exist as a country so people tolerated those taxes. If you suggested raising income taxes that much today people would go insane.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 month ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,365
And I’m not saying it’s right or wrong I’m just saying what it is.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,366
@1,451,363 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
And once that was over, Americans could have chosen to keep an economy where everyone could have a home.
The reason they didn't is an ideological attachment to lassaiz faire economics, and a widespread anti-communist campaign.
There's nothing materially that would prevent an economy like that today if people demanded it.
And once that was over, Americans could have chosen to keep an economy where everyone could have a home.
The reason they didn't is an ideological attachment to lassaiz faire economics, and a widespread anti-communist campaign.
There's nothing materially that would prevent an economy like that today if people demanded it.
Anonymous K double-posted this 1 month ago, 44 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,367
@1,451,365 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm saying the ideology of Americans today is wrong, and preventing an economy that allows everyone to own a home.
I'm saying the ideology of Americans today is wrong, and preventing an economy that allows everyone to own a home.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,368
@1,451,366 (K)
Well there are two parts to it, inequality and industry. You could make the US more equal, but we won’t ever be 40% of the world economy again for the foreseeable future, because we have industrial competition now and the population distribution in the world has changed. At the end of World War Two, Europe had more than twice the population of Africa, now Africa has twice the population of Europe, Africa is growing and without insane amounts of immigration, Europe will shrink. Africa hasn’t developed yet but even if it develops even a little bit that’s going to change everything.
Well there are two parts to it, inequality and industry. You could make the US more equal, but we won’t ever be 40% of the world economy again for the foreseeable future, because we have industrial competition now and the population distribution in the world has changed. At the end of World War Two, Europe had more than twice the population of Africa, now Africa has twice the population of Europe, Africa is growing and without insane amounts of immigration, Europe will shrink. Africa hasn’t developed yet but even if it develops even a little bit that’s going to change everything.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 month ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,369
So it wouldn’t be a second 1950s it would be something else.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,371
@1,451,367 (K)
I guess, I could have thoughts and feelings about how it should be, but it is how it is.
I guess, I could have thoughts and feelings about how it should be, but it is how it is.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,372
@1,451,368 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Ok, but what does any of that have to do with every family affording a home?
The wealth the US has determines if the US can afford to build homes.
If China or Africa are doing well, that doesn't stop home building here.
And again, people talk about their lifestyles compared to their parents. No one is complaining their home isn't bigger than a middle class Chinese family.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
And that's the problem. If people don't care about how things should be, why would they ever demand it?
Ok, but what does any of that have to do with every family affording a home?
The wealth the US has determines if the US can afford to build homes.
If China or Africa are doing well, that doesn't stop home building here.
And again, people talk about their lifestyles compared to their parents. No one is complaining their home isn't bigger than a middle class Chinese family.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
And that's the problem. If people don't care about how things should be, why would they ever demand it?
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 1 month ago, 56 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,373
@previous (K)
The priority will be maintaining dominance. That’s generally what counties do in this kind of situation.
The priority will be maintaining dominance. That’s generally what counties do in this kind of situation.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,374
@previous (J)
Are you saying that the reason the average worker can't afford a home is because of military spending?
Are you saying that the reason the average worker can't afford a home is because of military spending?
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,375
@1,451,373 (J)
> The priority will be maintaining dominance. That’s generally what counties do in this kind of situation.
Btw they’re going to make registration for the selective service automatic when males turn 18 in the United States.
Look at what happened last time. The Soviet Union fell, what is Russia doing? Russia had a communist revolution, what were the material conditions of the average Russian when that happened? Not wealthy capitalist democracy. What happens next probably isn’t socialism.
> The priority will be maintaining dominance. That’s generally what counties do in this kind of situation.
Btw they’re going to make registration for the selective service automatic when males turn 18 in the United States.
Look at what happened last time. The Soviet Union fell, what is Russia doing? Russia had a communist revolution, what were the material conditions of the average Russian when that happened? Not wealthy capitalist democracy. What happens next probably isn’t socialism.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,376
@previous (M)
It was already required, and you couldn't get a federal job or even student loans if you didn't.
The only thing that is changing is that you won't have to fill out a form, it's automatic now.
> Look at what happened last time. The Soviet Union fell, what is Russia doing? Russia had a communist revolution, what were the material conditions of the average Russian when that happened? Not wealthy capitalist democracy. What happens next probably isn’t socialism.
Not sure what this has to do with the conversation or what you are implying.
It was already required, and you couldn't get a federal job or even student loans if you didn't.
The only thing that is changing is that you won't have to fill out a form, it's automatic now.
> Look at what happened last time. The Soviet Union fell, what is Russia doing? Russia had a communist revolution, what were the material conditions of the average Russian when that happened? Not wealthy capitalist democracy. What happens next probably isn’t socialism.
Not sure what this has to do with the conversation or what you are implying.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,451,451
@1,451,369 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
If we get union membership and highest income level tax rates back up, we could see some material conditions similar to the 50s. Things might not be so luxurious but the American people could afford the basic necessities and a few nice things.
If we get union membership and highest income level tax rates back up, we could see some material conditions similar to the 50s. Things might not be so luxurious but the American people could afford the basic necessities and a few nice things.