You’re entertaining me too @Sabo
Edit: I am being sincere, I enjoy your posting.
The hilarious thing is that @ ChrisV playing the ACer side in this thread.
We’d point out ACism was self-contradictory gibberish. They’d whine we must defend ‘statist-ism’ so as to have a ‘debate’.
We point out that capitalism is by nature unsustainable. @ ChrisV is whining that I’m not giving him some imaginary Marxist utopia so as to have a ‘debate’.
The truth value of (ACism is gibberish) or (capitalism isn’t sustainable) are stand alone Qs.
I think you have plenty of knowledge. Regulation before the 1970s created the 1970s. Regulation after the 1970s created today. The proof is in the pudding.
The point is that ‘well regulation’ has it’s never been sustainable, not for an instant, not ever. It’s never worked in the past, it’s not working now… why would you imagine something literally magical is going to happen in the future so that all of a sudden it starts working?
I mean I’m done here because I don’t even know why this conversation is happening here (every other thread on the forum is for capitalism vs other things debates) but that analogy is gibberish. When ACists demanded that we defend statism they were talking about the system prevailing in the real world; ACism was the imaginary utopia. Here capitalism actually exists and whatever the hell you’re proposing instead, which is still unclear to me, is the imaginary utopia.
Here is a bit of my post I have bolded to emphasise that I am very smart and my words are of great importance.
1 Like
As I mentioned, the liberals think life is ordering off a menu. The world doesn’t work that way.
It wasn’t an analogy.
The only one carrying on about imaginary utopias and ACers is you. How about cutting that shit out. Or start an ACer thread of your own.
I specified here, though. No specific quotes, just the general tone and false equivalence of Biden to Trump that several posters make.
I don’t, I was specifically referring to a few people here.
Nope that’s not what I’m saying.
I am an idealist in forming my opinions and choosing which policy I want. I am a pragmatist in supporting the best option available. I supported Bernie, but I’ll vote for Biden. I support single payer, but I’ll be glad if we get a public option (then keep fighting). I support the GND, but I’d be happy to make Immediate progress in 2021 and keep fighting.
You can be left or right and be idealistic or pragmatic. As an example, if I were POTUS and had 51 Dems in the Senate, my healthcare strategy would be different than if I had 57.
I know regulation was shitty for some period of time before 1972 or whatever, to get to how bad it was. But I couldn’t tell you if it was always thus or if it got bad after that. I know 1972 - ? was better but not perfect. I don’t know when we went off the rails or if it always sucked, but my guess is Citizens United played a role in making it worse.
Regulation is not magical. Well-regulated is not magical. If getting from where we are now to well-regulated is magical, getting from here to where you want to go is even more magical.
The best, likely only, shot at saving ourselves from ourselves in terms of the climate is major action like yesterday. Hopefully if we can get major action in the next year and follow to with even more in 2023 and 2025, we can mitigate a lot of it.
That’s going to have to happen through our current system, unless you have a plan to raise up an army and defeat the greatest military on the planet, or a plan to get like 20 million people to protest full-time.
My hope that is at least somewhat realistic is:
-
Sweep on 11/3, pass some major legislation on this and Biden works with allies to try to get better collective action and get the US back in the mix.
-
Gain seats for the progressive/AOC caucus. Primary even more eDems in 2022 and get that caucus up to 40+ seats - enough to hold anything and everything hostage legislatively and force action from the entire caucus.
-
Cut the best deal possible.
I don’t think people are more practical or idealistic depending on if they are more to the left or more to the right. A MAGA is to the right of you. Would you say they are more practical than you… and you are more idealistic than them?
This just sounds like trying to find patterns in static.
Not at all. What we know (the premise to you) is that capitalism is unsustainable. If that (premise) is true, then moving from anywhere to “sustainable capitalism” would take magic.
What can I say to get you folks off this both-sides fixation.
Let’s say you told some fool: “You can’t drive a car from Perris California to Paris France without magic”. The fool replied: “Well if driving from Perris to Paris is magical, driving from Perris to wherever you want to go is even more magical”. How would you proceed?
Chris vs Sabo just isn’t a fair fight.
You mean the dude who admits he doesn’t even understand what we were talking about… then proceeded to carry on about imaginary utopias -vs- imaginary distopias like ACism, or some such nonsense, for several non-sequitur posts?
ETA: I flow charted @ ChrisV’s contributions to the thread…
The first thing to do would be including all the costs and not being able to outsource some of them. Nuclear power would have never been in the mix if the firms actually had to pay for the cleanup after the power plant reached its maxium age. In Germany most of these costs will be paid by the taxpayer because the energy providers didnt put that much money into a savings account and we cant just let this stuff rot. If I would be elected I would put penalty duties on goods where the companies cant proof 100% that their goods arent made by childs or in hazardous conditions. My wet dream would be penalties on goods that come from countries with the death penalty. I wouldnt trade with countries that destroy the rain forest like Brazil.(I actually believe that Brazil should demand payments from the rest of the world that it keeps the rain forest alive to compensate for the loss of revenue and economic development) In the end it would be pretty inconvenient for a lot of people.
1 Like
Or you could go with the American plan and just let it rot in place.
Are there replicator manufacturers in Star Trek or do you just have a replicator make a new replicator?
I’d assume the latter.
I’m not a trekkie, but I am a manufacturing engineer.
Some IRL machines make themselves in a certain sense of the word… which can seem a little strange. Presses and press brakes are substantially made on presses and press brakes. When a press manufacturer wants to install a press… they “buy” it from their own inventory. I’ve worked on a machine that made the machine screws that held it together, where we had to replace the screws… which we took from it’s own output bin. Another trip was machines where the output could be fed right back into the machine as it’s input… and they actually did this.
People have asked me if a 3D printer can print a 3D printer. The answer is of course “no”, because there are parts inside all these machines, like the electronics, that don’t self-replicate. People have asked me if a 3D printer can print food. The answer is “yes”. But with a catch… the ‘ink’ needs to be food itself. A 3D printer can’t turn plastic into food.
People have asked me if I’m going to be out of a job because of 3D printers. I just laugh. The unit cost of 3D printing a machine screw would be like 10000x the unit cost of the factory machine I mentioned above.
Back to scifi.
I doesn’t matter if a replicator could (cost effectively) replicate itself… not to the capitalists. They already got a way of extracting absentee profit in these situations. It’s called intellectual property. In fact, what we are talking about would be the “right to copy”. Sound familiar (c) (c) (c) ?
2 Likes
Can the capitalist economic system deliver environmental justice?
Karen Bell
Published 22 December 2015 • © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 12
…Abstract
Can a healthy environment for all social groups be delivered through capitalism via market mechanisms? Or is it the capitalist system, itself, that has been at the root of the environmental and social crises we now face? …
there is an apparent propensity for capitalist processes to exacerbate, rather than reduce, environmental problems and inequities though the pursuit of relentless economic growth and profit accumulation. Therefore, we should perhaps let go of efforts to resolve environmental injustice within the constraints of capitalism…
FYP. SMH.
So, nobody should even consider what this academic journal article has to say… because this K.Ball hasn’t spelled out exactly what imaginary Marxist utopia she must necessarily be proposing. /sarcasm
ETA: this K.Bell is just like the ACers !!!1!
Man, this K.Ball has her own website, and a webpage at the uni she teaches at. I looked though it all. I didn’t find any plans for a imaginary Marxist uptopia. Didn’t find anything even close.
For the 5yos… The reason I’m rubbing @ ChrisV’s nose in it is to make this point: It’s childishly stupid to insist that every chat has to be a ‘rigorous debate’ between the status quo and some ‘proposal’. This is a canonical example. The sustainability of capitalism is a stand alone question. There is no ‘proposal’ involved.
Further, some fool insisting that their target must pull some irrelevant and imaginary ‘proposal’ (Marxist or otherwise) out of their ass solely for that fool’s self-amusement is hardly good faith posting. It’s only not bad faith, I guess, if they are so damn confused they don’t have any idea about what’s being discussed.
2 Likes
Yet another useful thread down the shitter - well done UP!
3 Likes
Something I feared all along once Covid shut down a lot of the economy.
Quite a depressing read for me.