ok :meh: :sweat:

but are actually more or less distorted reflections of the world — unenlightened

Can't you have thoughts about your own thoughts?

Not always as far as I remember. — CuddlyHedgehog

How good is your memory?

And are we only meant to reply to posts that are addressed directly to us? Oh, I must have misunderstood the forum rules. — CuddlyHedgehog

No, obviously not. However, you can't treat a post not addressed specifically to you as a continuation of the previous discussion that was with you.

Exactly the same thing that made you think all my previous posts, that you replied to, were addressed to you. — CuddlyHedgehog

Well, you had quoted me in those posts as far as I remember.

Did it have an @CuddlySpinyHedgehog next to it or something? :eyes:

oh, excuse me! Did not realise you had changed the subject. — CuddlyHedgehog

What makes you think that the Le Pen post was addressed to you? :brow:

All right-wing politicians are adept at that. It’s how they compensate for bad judgment and lack of reasoning. — CuddlyHedgehog

:razz: ummm no.

What’s your point? Are you saying she slept with someone to get to where she is? Is it possible that her own credentials and qualifications got her there? Just because she is beautiful, it doesn’t mean she has prostituded herself to get the job. — CuddlyHedgehog

:brow: :chin:

You're certainly are a strange one. I said she is a charismatic politician. Can I know what that has to do with sleeping with someone? Can I know what that has to do with having or lacking credentials? Can I know what that has to do with being beautiful? :chin:

I don't agree with many of her anti-EU policies, but she surely seems like a charismatic politician, very adept at rousing the crowd:

No wonder you are a Trump's admirer, btw. His motto is "..grab 'em by the p*ssy.." — CuddlyHedgehog

Hmm is that why I've said stuff like:

Trump isn't a morally perfect person, for example, I think in matters of sexuality he has some important shortcomings, but in terms of getting things done, useful policies (like the tax & bureaucracy reduction), it seems that he's been doing well. Also, he's a very good cheerleader for America. — Agustino

And this isn't true either, I think that it's clear by now that in certain areas Trump isn't a very moral person - like sexuality for example. — Agustino

And the usual responsibility-aborting cliche "a friend of mine mentioned that..." Why don't you just admit you are a chauvinistic pig (I hope pigs will forgive me), already? — CuddlyHedgehog

Because I don't think I am a chauvinistic pig, though you obviously enjoy calling me that. I simply said the truth, that's what one of my friends said, who does happen to be somewhat chauvinistic as you say. He thinks that most female feminists are like that. I don't - I simply said that some are no doubt like that, and that's something that should be criticised. We shouldn't close our eyes to our allies' faults merely because they are on the same side as us.

If a woman acts out of resentment for other women who are more beautiful than her, then that's wrong, regardless of whether her actions otherwise have positive consequences.

The only thing I agree with you on is that men are (evidently, based on your argument) useable and disposable. — CuddlyHedgehog

Well, this is sexist now, because it actually is a blanket statement about men in general. No doubt that there are women who treat men that way, just like there are men who treat women that way. In fact, quite a lot of the men that I've met treat women as disposable, unfortunately.

Having said that, I wouldn't screw an ugly imbecile for all the money and power in the world, especially when I can get those through outsmarting the idiot. — CuddlyHedgehog

Except that you can't get money & power without having sex with him - at least not as easily and as quickly. For example, a prostitute who had sex with him once got a $10,000 necklace. Also, just because you wouldn't have sex with him for money & power doesn't mean that other women wouldn't.

This post might get deleted but it's off my chest now, so there!. — CuddlyHedgehog

Ok, well, hopefully, you at least feel better, though I actually happen to be on the same side of the fence as you are. But you seem to have an aversion to confronting the problem as it exists - I was merely outlining what the problem is. You can't solve a problem if you're not aware of what it is.

There is an unholy alliance between some beautiful women and sexist men which is precisely why for 20+ years sexism is still thriving in Italy and cannot be eradicated.

Has it ever crossed your mind, even remotely, that they might be fighting against the objectification of women because it's wrong and they do not want to become objectified themselves? — CuddlyHedgehog

Sure. That's why I said:

there is probably no doubt that some women who feel resentment towards other women may channel that resentment towards fighting against the objectification of women just so they can "get back" at women who can use their physical beauty to their advantage. Not all of them, obviously, but I have no doubt that some of them fall in this category. — Agustino

Or is it a privilege and an achievement for a woman to become objectified, as you put it, in your demented little mind? — CuddlyHedgehog

Well, some women would consider this as a privilege. In a sexist culture, some of the beautiful women get their sense of self-esteem precisely by being able to make these rich and powerful men desire them and want to have sex with them (unlike the ugly women who can't). That is their own way of dominating these men, despite their wealth and power.

Objectively, I would say this is a humiliation, not an achievement, for both the man and the woman in question. But then for me, sexual morality is very important, so I am against all forms of cheating, sexual promiscuity, etc.

Yes, but this does not mean that they are not a threat. They ARE a real threat for Europe (especially the Eastern countries), and most of the countries surrounding them (with the exception of China). So they are absolutely a regional power, and that is more than enough to cause a lot of damage to the world, even though they clearly would not be able to compete with the US or China in terms of world hegemony (at least not yet).

Intellectuals didn't stop thinking, didn't stop researching, didn't stop worrying and didn't stop explaining when people asked questions. — Benkei

But they stopped having an influence. If people don't listen to you, that's your fault - you failed to find a way to communicate with them in a way through which your message got across.

Why is it the intellectuals role to lead? — Benkei

Who should lead then if not the intellectuals?

I wouldn't want to pin my hopes on a person or a small cadre. — Benkei

Not in the sense of having no say in the matter, sure. But does that mean that you wouldn't want a small & capable leadership group?

Why isn't it a failure of society to listen — Benkei

You can't have expectations out of a pig, but you can have expectations out of Socrates.

politicians to act based on fact instead of ideology — Benkei

That is a problem, and also that they act based on their own economic interests.

Sounds a lot like Trump. — René Descartes

No man, Trump is infinitely better, there's no comparison. Trump really is a gentleman compared to Berlusconi :rofl: , and that's saying something, cause by normal standards Trump is definitely not a gentleman.

And that's the thing - he has shaped Italy's culture such that people love the macho, bigoted misogynist kind of attitude - even amongst women. Because there are many many beautiful women who have profited financially and otherwise because of him and others like him. They too don't want the status quo to change. They are used to using their bodies to get ahead, and it has actually become a thing of prestige for them, something to be proud of - they are beautiful and unashamed of it. In the competition with other women, they feel dominant - why would they want the status quo to change?

A friend of mine mentioned to me that usually female feminists are ugly women physically - and that's true to a certain extent, in that there is probably no doubt that some women who feel resentment towards other women may channel that resentment towards fighting against the objectification of women just so they can "get back" at women who can use their physical beauty to their advantage. Not all of them, obviously, but I have no doubt that some of them fall in this category.

The activists are usually those who do not benefit from the establishment. If you get to be a minister after you sleep with Berlusconi, you're not gonna want him gone! He was your ticket to power, and it was so easy and so quick! In fact, he promotes beautiful young women, that's what many women on the streets would also say.

So it is a strange relationship, where the victim and the oppressor end up sharing some sort of benefit together that would be lost if the relationship is dissolved. The victim in turn becomes an oppressor, and in that they are co-opted to sustain those who have oppressed them in the first place.

And a very corrupt, selfish, racist, psychopathic, bigoted misogynist. And how exactly does that benefit you as a voter? Mind-boggling, self-inflicted misery. — CuddlyHedgehog

It's not about benefiting the voter. He controls the political infrastructure, so things are simply arranged such that he wins - not to mention like 80% of Italian media.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/italy-s-berlusconi-could-play-kingmaker-after-wild-election-campaign-n851926

This old dinosaur is very probably going to get back to power :rofl:

He started "with a small loan" secured by his father who worked for the bank - to build one of Milan's prime real estate projects Milan Due, at the age of 25 (3500 apartments). It's good to be a hard-working "entrepreneur" :naughty:

:heart:

:rofl:

And you trust the government to guarantee your money in such scenario? Adorable simplicity. — CuddlyHedgehog

No, the banks will mostly guarantee it with the extensive assets that they have. They may have no liquidity, and therefore declare bankruptcy, though that doesn't mean that they aren't rich.

You mostly demonstrate otherwise . Why would I expect this to be an exception? — Metaphysician Undercover

:kiss: lovely boy.

Hmmm, I forgot to log out of my other account. That sometimes happens... :rofl:

Cross-posted. — Baden

The new conspiracy will be that Agustino and Baden are the same person :rofl:

LOL - you quoted me out of context:

salaries taxed at 90% above certain levels — Agustino

"part" of the salary ought to be taxed at 90%. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's self-evident. For two reasons, one pragmatic and one grammatical. Pragmatically, I'm not a retard, and I would not suggest that someone like a lawyer live off 15K a year, obviously. Grammatically, I said the tax is applied to the salary above certain levels. If your total salary is 160K, what's the salary above the 150K level?

Oh, why didn't you say so in the first place? — Metaphysician Undercover

I did.

Right, so income of $150,001 leaves one with about $15,000 in take home pay. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope. *facepalm*

160K income. On 150K normal tax. On 10K 90%.

What, a person making $150K ought to be taxed 90%? So their take home pay is $15K? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Read what I wrote. "ABOVE CERTAIN LEVELS". $150K is taxed normally, above that taxed at 90%.

I think there is a wave of anti-intellectualism through the world - not just in America - but also in Europe, Russia, China, etc. because intellectuals have failed to provide an alternative to the collapsing world-order of the West - intellectuals have failed to steer us in the right direction or, for that matter, to provide practical solutions to the "everyday" problems that we encounter.

Thus, intellectuals came to be associated with weak, impractical people, who can do no other work, and hence resort to being a mere intellectual. And in a certain sense this is true - many intellectuals have retreated into being gadflies and parasites unto the existing world-order which conferred them with a cozy place as a Professor or faculty member at some learning institution - and in exchange for this cozy position (neither too rich nor too poor), it has stripped them of any serious influence - intellectuals are not taken seriously anymore.

What can be done about it is that intellectuals must come out of their caves and show that they can practically lead the way, and they're not staying in their caves merely as an escape from reality - they need to show that they must be taken seriously again.

In real life banks can go insolvent through bad debt — ssu

Sure, in very unlikely circumstances.

Say someone takes a 30-year loan. There is a crisis coming 6 years down the road and you don't know about it (you're quite sure though that no near-term crisis is at hand). Fine. Until the crisis the value of the property increases, by, say, 3-5% per annum - roughly a 20% increase going with the lower bound here. He has paid more than 20% of the original value of the property in those 6 years (6/30 - actually more than that cause you pay progressively less - bankers are smart, not stupid, but for the sake of being as harsh as possible on the banker, we'll assume just 20%). How much does the crisis knock the value of the property off? Let's say at first -60% and then appreciates to somewhere 40-30%. So how much is that compared to original value? 1.2*0.6 = 72% - so a loss of 28%. But the person has already paid 20% of the original value. So the loss is really just 8%. Now he can't pay anymore. You take the property, you wait a couple of months till the price gets to higher than -40% compared to pre-crisis levels and sell the property. You're a winner. It's easy to be a banker.

Ok, this is just humbug. — ssu

Not humbug. The bank's making an investment. The only thing they need to cover is to make sure that their capital grows faster than inflation. Simple.

Are you reading what I write? — ssu

And you suggest that (better) banking is the solution? Nope.

If a housing bubble bursts, the banks will make a loss with the housing when the debt is larger than the selling price of the house. — ssu

A loss in accounting terms maybe. Based on money they could have gotten. No loss in real terms. Remember -> loss = final capital < inflation*initial capital (+ whatever small minute amount would go towards paying whatever employees were involved in the process). Those are the real terms - I'm not talking about "fictive" on-paper accounting losses relative to what they could have made.

the person owning the house can simply sell the house for profit and pay the loan back. — ssu

+ the interest rate.

If you would look at ANY goddam market sector and take out the competition aspect: have just ONE supermarket chain, guess how much everything would cost with lousy the service would be? Hence for there to be competition is crucial. The government has only to watch that no bank becomes too reckless. — ssu

We have one military, that's not a problem. We have one ministry of government building roads - not a problem, etc.

In some industries, lack of competition is bad. In some industries, the profit motive is important. Not in all.

And solely? Well, the reason for many services and production of goods to have profit is the objective. Of course a lot of people are genuinely happy when their customers are happy. That doesn't make the profit agenda any less important. — ssu

Nope. The profit-motive isn't good in all circumstances and industries. I agree entrepreneurship should be for-profit - entrepreneurship doesn't include banking though, which is monopolistic and heavily in bed with the state everywhere anyhows. Let's nationalise them and eliminate the profit-motive from banking, that will stop the accumulation of capital to banks.

That's just provoking hatred against "the rich". — ssu

No, these aren't "the rich". These are "the thieves" - they don't deserve that wealth. There is nothing wrong with Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, etc. having a fortune of $100+ billion. But there is something wrong with retards who have never taken any real risk in their lives, holding a prestigious piece of paper and nothing else apart from maybe family connections, to earn that kind of money while doing effectively nothing. That is a disgrace.

even if not many people went to jail, the owners of the banks lost money and the banking sector was totally reformed (only a few smaller banks continued with the big banks being merged/broken up). — ssu

Riiiight - screw everyone else, do not be worried, you won't go to jail, and you will keep your big mansion too - you'll just give up your job. That sounds like a terrible deal for the government.

It's simply about the government doing it's job or not and having the balls to have very rich people loose their money. — ssu

The government doesn't do it's job because it too is formed of a class of leeches, very similar to the bankers, who make a lot of money while doing nothing and taking no risks.

With that wealth they then become consumers, which then creates a market and hence creates growth. — ssu

And when do they become producers? Never?

Why people in the Third World countries remain poor is because they cannot get a loan to buy their own home and hence have to live on a rent. — ssu

LOL! Banking in Third World countries is the problem, not the solution. They even take charges for taking money out of the ATM :lol: - in fact, the poorer the country is, the more these thieves will try to rob them. There will be a crisis in some 5-10 years in Eastern European countries - lots of young people are taking huge loans from banks to buy property, loans that they will never be able to pay back because rates will keep going up, while salaries are still very low. The bank will get the property and some of the interest too! I pity a lot of young people who have taken 30 year-long mortgages from the bank to buy property - they really have no clue what they're getting themselves into.

Having real estate has been one of the most simple ways how people in the West have become more wealthier. — ssu

Why do you think so? Owning real estate is not a way to become wealthier - unless you rent it out. Owning real estate is otherwise an expense. Whether you pay rent or you pay the bank monthly payments on your mortgage - same thing, except that paying the bank has the potential to suddenly increase your interest rates. Bankers aren't dumb - especially in third-world countries they've rigged the system and are MORE oppressive than in the Western world, and MORE entitled. A cohort of banks dominate the banking system in third world countries and collude with each other to set the terms. There is no competition, who are you kidding? Or if there is competition, there is within certain bounds, that they themselves set.

What a nationalized or government controlled banking sector does it that hinders the competition between banks and the end result is that less people can get loans. Simple as that. — ssu

There should be no competition - banking shouldn't be solely for profit.

end result is that less people can get loans. — ssu

Less people get loans as things are now - or if they get them, they get them as terrible deals, that aren't even worth getting. In countries where the average wage is $300-600/month, you have banking directors making $10,000+/month. Why? What service is the bank director doing that he deserves that kind of payment relative to others? And not just the bank director, but everyone under him. They are all thieves, from the highest ranks to the lowest. It is utterly ridiculous that anyone believes banks are good, or multinational corporations are good, etc. - these are just a class of people who are profiting from this theft of national property and the abuse of entire nations and their fellow citizens by rackateering money-changers.

if the banks fail, say tomorrow, your savings are gone, your business is going down as people will have no money to buy your stuff and you will starve unless you have enough money stashed away under your mattress. — CuddlyHedgehog

Banks must guarantee savings in their bank accounts under certain limits. In some EU countries this amount is like 100,000 EUR per account. So if you have say, $1 million, and spread it 100K/bank, you'll be fine. Even if you have it all in one account, you'll still get 100K EUR or the equivalent.

If the bank doesn't have liquidities, no worries. Then they should pay with asset transfers, or otherwise liquidate those assets to pay the guarantees and close the bank. Simple. Many people out there wouldn't mind owning one or two bank branch buildings.

Don't tell me banks don't have money - they own assets, in property alone, sometimes in the billions. This is disgusting.

The problem (which you likely know) is that that in the present systems the risks and rewards don't go hand in hand and hence you have had very reckless banks. — ssu

You get very reckless banks precisely because the social classes I was talking about have already formed. They insulate themselves from the risks, while accumulating more and more rewards. They don't care about the risks - whatever happens, for the most part, they will manage. They just set out the game that way - and if things really go bad, go beg a little to politicians and they'll save you even then.

What is your reasoning? — ssu

1. Banking is not productive - bankers don't produce anything or add any value. Ideally, banking should facilitate the development of industries by providing access to capital. This shouldn't be done SOLELY with the profit motive - a business may not be able to earn great profits at first, but it may be, for social reasons for example, necessary - it should still get funding.

2. For-profit banking is the equivalent of making money out of thin-air, and it creates entire social classes which profit from this without doing much. They are given higher social status, and are set apart from others based on literarily no merit whatsoever.

Basic banking is a service just as anything: — ssu

Yeah, a service where the banker pretty much cannot lose.

And if those loans given out cannot be paid back by the people who took the loans, the banker ought to lose his job. — ssu

If the loans can't be paid back, not a problem. Seize his house, seize his assets, why do you care? You may have some logistical issues selling those assets, so you just bunch them together, and sell them all at once at some discount and make your money back. No wonder - bankers usually make terrible administrators.

Who the hell do I know to which barber or car mechanic can pay his loans or not? — ssu

You don't need to know, because it's simply set up that you pretty much cannot lose. When you propose conditions for a mortgage for a property investment and give me a variable interest rate based on a reference rate + 1-2% - while that reference rate usually ends up somewhat higher than inflation anyway at least for the foreseeable future, AND force me to guarantee with the property, then you pretty much cannot lose. In fact, I calculated it for one such case - the scenarios in which the bank really loses are basically non-existent. Whereas I will be a slave to you for quite a few years if I fail to pay you the capital. Those aren't fair conditions, they are abusive, and discourage entrepreneurial activity.

Oh, so you are talking from a place of safety. You should be living the "dream" most Americans do today and I would like to see how fond of the orange imbecile you would be then. — CuddlyHedgehog

Trump can't be responsible for the condition the US is in today - he was barely President for one year. Blame your other ex-Presidents like Clinton, Bush, Obama - all of them terrible.

Well, I'm not American, and I don't live there. So I certainly am not what's wrong with America.

That simply doesn't work. It has been proven again and again — ssu

No it hasn't. Only nationalising the whole economy doesn't work. I didn't recommend that we do that.

And it basically goes against the whole idea of entrepreneurship. If you take a risk, you should get also bigger profit for it (if things go well) than not taking the risk. Money has to have a price. — ssu

Yes, you should - but not as a sleazy banker who doesn't produce anything and just watches money pour in. That's not "risk-taking". When the bank offers you a loan on terms that 99% of possible scenarios they win - that's not right, that's theft.

The most idiotic idea ever is to think that you can replace the market mechanism with a government bureacrat. Because that is what you are saying. (Just as, well, the central banks do now for the money markets). — ssu

In some cases that is already done - roads, the military, many natural resources etc. - doesn't seem to be a problem in those cases. Banking should be one of those industries, since making profits out of banking is ridiculous - nothing gets produced by bankers.

What I'm sick and tired of is the ludicrous idea that either the economy should totally be EITHER under government control or that there ought to be no government involvement in the markets whatsoever. And if those would be the only options. — ssu

Sure, that's not what I suggested.

Yeah, count on Trump to increase taxes on the rich. — CuddlyHedgehog

You shouldn't increase taxes on the rich just because they're rich. That's also not fair, because some people deserve to be rich.

Trump is not an entrepreneur. He inherited his fortune from his family and he screwed up several times, declaring himself bankrupt and dodging paying his debts and taxes. Now he is screwing up the whole country and the rest of the world with it. — CuddlyHedgehog

He lost more than a billion dollars and remade it - he is an entrepreneur.

Well Agustino, entrepreneurs do run the economy. — ssu

No, they don't. Entrepreneurs are finding it harder and harder to take decisions on their own, and more and more they have to be at the mercy of boards of directors, investors, politicians etc. It would be good if the entrepreneurs actually ran the economy.

The industry typically just takes the tariffs/subsidies etc. as a given and doesn't do anything to improve it's situation. Why should it, if it's protected? — ssu

Well, people are usually driven to growing - that's what most entrepreneurs intend to do anyway. So even if it might not happen in the short-term, I see no reason not to expect it sooner or later.

In the end, if you just want to pay more for having an uncompetitive industry that actually doesn't deliver, well, then why not.

Sure, after years of barely making an income, I think we can afford to let the entrepreneurs bank a little dough home for awhile. There are many entrepreneurs out there who are persistently, sometimes for many years, barely surviving, and some of them even run quite large companies.

Protectionism is bad for the economy as a whole. And guess who is going to get hurt first and foremost >>> the entrepreneurs! — CuddlyHedgehog

No, I disagree. Local industries have to be protected, and access to finance needs to be made much easier than it is for local entrepreneurs. Banking should be nationalised, there should be no "for-profit" money changing. That is a monstrosity.

Lawyers and doctors need to have their salaries taxed at 90% above certain levels, which can still be quite high - say $150K in US.

Wall Street - taxed at 90% on profits.

Anyone who is a leech and not productive has to be thrown out. We have many leeches as it is in politics, in the banks, amongst lawyers, etc. - people who survive in the system because of their social relations, instead of merit & risk taking. Nobody who does not risk must be extraordinarily rewarded or accorded social status for that matter.

Protectionism is bad for those money changers - they're used to pulling all the strings, but this has got to stop.