You do understand that assisting ordinary people (by printing a lot of money) was partly the cause of the inflation now? — ssu

Emphasis on “partly.” In my view it accounts for very little, but it’s telling that you want to highlight this “part” over and over again — rather than COVID or the war. Why exactly I’m not sure, but it’s a right-wing talking point and cover for desired austerity.

This may come as a shock to you, but we're not all sociopaths. — Isaac

Which is what all the small government bullshit boils down to: a view that human beings are essentially sociopathic. Free-market fantasies included.

Governments have been trying to solve socio-economic issues for ages, and they always fail. While not necessarily fixing the problems, the free exchange of goods and ideas has done more to improve the lot of the common man than any attempt by governments. — Tzeentch

Pure fantasy without a shred of evidence.

Just too hard to let go of this belief. Dogma dies hard I guess.

Second Trade Joe's Unionizes.

It continues...

:lol: Exactly.

Is the mind divisible?

Well: what is “mind”?

I only have a problem when people want to banish it from any public forum. — schopenhauer1

I have no desire to do so. And I don’t consider it illogical. I just think it’s silly and those who pick this hill to die on are silly. But like I said, that’s their prerogative!

They generally don't take positions that put values on things. Rather, it is philosophical pessimism, and it's not dressed up. — schopenhauer1

It's dressed up nihilism. Always has been.

Creating joy is not an obligation. Not creating harms where it didn't have to take place is. — schopenhauer1

Neither are obligations. There's either the desire to give life or not. Those who don't want to are welcome. But not everyone views suffering and exclaims "life is refuted," which is what antienatalism rests on. If you don't share that attitude, then the rest is just nonsense. I don't share that attitude.

Again, for those who do -- fine. Then kill yourself, don't have kids, etc. That's your right. But why one wants to go around infecting others with this morbid, anti-life view is beyond me. I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. Carry on!

It's anti-suffering. — schopenhauer1

Also anti-joy and anti-life.

If you’re in favor of not having kids, don’t have any. If you’re arguing that human beings shouldn’t have kids, then you’re anti-life. The result is the end of the species. That essentially says: ”life is evil.” Evil because suffering exists.

Just dressed up nihilism.

Why anyone chooses to go on and on about this — to fight THIS battle — is an interesting psychological fact about them. But nothing more.

The reason it isn’t convincing is because the argument is stupid. It’s fundamentally anti-life. That’s more a matter of mood and temperament than sound reasoning. Nietzsche has plenty to say on this— far more articulate than me.

I’m the opposite of you: I don’t have kids, and I’m not convinced in the slightest.

Tell that to my fellow senior citizens on fixed incomes. :roll: — jgill

There should be assistance to senior citizens. My advice is for them to stop voting Republican. In any case, inflation is temporary. Climate change is existential.

I suppose it's better that they're literally under water or burned in a wildfire?

Australia about to pass a major climate bill.

The bill is expected to pass the Senate next month, after the Labor government secured reluctant support from the Australian Greens, which had pushed for a higher target. And it is being hailed as the most significant piece of climate legislation in a decade, while also being criticized for not going far enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/world/australia/climate-change-bill.html

Sounds familiar. But it’s still some progress.

They simply see that their strategy works — baker

they don't hate human beings in general — baker

Letting them do what they do is convicing them that they're not doing anything wrong. — baker

they're solidary with one another — baker

I have no idea who you’re talking about. I’m talking about anti-social types — specifically, NOS.

But feel free to continue playing the contrarian about something you haven’t read. As usual. :ok:

Not too gloomy. It's going to be a very difficult path indeed.

I didn't know Poland accounted for that much coal use. Guess that should be the focus.

The EU is turning to coal temporarily, and that's bad in the short run. But it'll be better in the longer run, in my view. The war will likely push them to develop renewables even faster, if only to avoid dependence on Russia. But that's in the longer run. This regression is unfortunate in the meantime. But I cut them some slack for it given the circumstances.

Yes, I guess it's a giant conspiracy. My advice: stop wasting time on stupidity.

The bill probably won't do anything about inflation. It's a silly label created so that Joe Manchin can save face.

Inflation isn't important and isn't a problem. What's important is doing something about climate change. This bill takes a few baby steps in that direction.

I really can’t see how anyone whose read anything I’ve written on here for three years can claim I have trust in the political system— or, for that matter, am an “optimist.”

I believe in the power of real people doing real work, especially in solidarity. Which is why I’ve said, repeatedly, that the organizing should continue. I also don’t relegate possible actions exclusively to pressuring governments. I embrace a diversity of tactics.

So I’m not sure what you’re driving at, but it’s at least misplaced.

You're glad for nothing. Way too little too late. — Benkei

Cutting emissions by 40% is better than 27%. That’s reason to be glad. Not nearly enough, but it’s a start.

By no means am I advocating complacency because of this bill. But even this small step wouldn’t have happened without real work. Real work that really isn’t possible if one resigns oneself to defeatism.

After following this all day, your post was the first I heard it passed. :lol:

I’m guessing it passes the house now. I’m shocked this happened at all. Shows the impact of people pushing for it.

Or — this was Manchin’s plan all along: keep whittling it down over time, keep saying no, get everyone thinking it’s dead — then, when you let that linger, come back and give scraps and have everyone forget that they’re being fucked: that it’s nowhere close to the original $6 trillion, which was already too little. In the end we get 400 billion. A drop in the bucket.

A nice psychological trick. Similar to the “low-balling” technique of haggling.

I don’t know if this was all deliberate, but I’m suspicious. This isn’t a great bill. Still, I can’t help being glad they got something.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/02/climate/manchin-deal-emissions-cuts.html

Currently they’re in “vote-o-rama” — more ridiculousness. But it should pass soon.

Regarding climate:




This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?

With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.

We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).

That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.

This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.

Military: $7,500,000,000,000.

Climate: $385,000,000,000.

The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[also posted on climate thread as it’s relevant there as well.]

Worth remembering: we need to cut about 30 billion tons of carbon — globally — by 2030. This bill cuts 1 billion.

Nevertheless:




This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?

With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.

We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).

That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.

This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.

Military: $7,500,000,000,000.

Climate: $385,000,000,000.

The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

I'm not a Buddhist, — unenlightened

I didn’t say you were. But you know best.

What does this mean and what is it contributing?

What’s so awful about pain? Why is some pain worse than death?
— Xtrix

The questions make no sense. — unenlightened

:roll:

It makes perfect sense. Why does one prefer death to pain?

Sometimes the pain is excruciating — that’s obvious. That’s also not what I’m talking about.

The rest of your post is Buddhist cliche.

Again making the mistake in thinking there is something wrong. — Darkneos

It’s not a mistake. If someone “longs for death,” that person has a problem. Unless we want to vacate the words of any meaning whatsoever.

You'd think it'd be easy and I do too. Trust me when I say I've googled painless ways to die — Darkneos

What’s so awful about pain? Why is some pain worse than death?

If one were to take a dive off a tall building they’d be dead.

Anyway— It’s really not that interesting. Feel free to have the last word.

Because getting there, as I already stated, is hard and unreliable as things stand — Darkneos

It’s hard and unreliable to kill yourself? I really can’t see how that’s true, but OK.

As for the survival instinct — yes, true. But supposedly you long for death. If the drive to continue living is greater— then you really don’t want it. If you did you’d be dead already— provided that there are means to do so and, as I already mentioned, there are plenty of ways to do so.

People who consider suicide very often don’t truly want to die — they’re either without meaning and joy or are clinically depressed.

Do you consider yourself depressed? It sounds that way to me. In which case: there are ways out.

as I long for death, — Darkneos

Then why are you still around? I don’t mean this to be callous — and I’m not encouraging suicide — but genuinely curious. If you long for nothingness, why keep going?

its members fail to recognize their own solidarity. — Pantagruel

We see this in unionization efforts. But it’s fairly easy to overcome: just listen to people. They’ll be much more in common than not.

As for large numbers — that’s a problem in anyway system. That’s why we subdivide between regions, states, districts, cities and towns.

Anti-social types love to blather on about markets and free trade — they’re simply merchants who lower everything to the level of transaction, because that’s all they know and thus how they see the world. Then they raise transactions among two people to moral heights.

But they always— always — ignore externalities. That’s not an accident. We’re supposed to forget about the outside world, the community, or other people altogether. What matters is ME and MY transactions.

So it goes for this sick, merchant worldview.

I’ll say it as I’ve said a hundred times: the quicker these poor saps die out, the better. For the sake of future generations.

Sinema has just signed on to this bill. Crucial step.

Looks like she’s nixing the carrier interest credit in favor of a buyback excise tax of 1%. Not bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/04/us/politics/sinema-inflation-reduction-act.html

What should I live for or how should I live? — rossii

That’s a fantastic question, and a highly important one.

It’s also, perhaps frustratingly, a deeply personal one. No general answer can be given — from me or anyone else. It has to come from you, and one day it may.

No they don't. They've gotten away with it for decades by making people focus on the culture war. — Mr Bee

Touché.

I guess for a second I forgot how cynical they really are.

If only we could go back to the glory years of feudalism and slavery. No big government regulations and taxes - simply "just" transactions between individuals.

Ah, the good ol' days.

Always remember what lies at the foundation of all this whining about taxes and government: narcissism and borderline solipsism. Oh -- I mean "freedom," of course.

The freedom to be a callous, selfish asshole.

Do you really think it is just to take the fruits of someone else’s labor without their consent? — NOS4A2

You do consent, by living in a country with laws. Don't like them? Either leave or try to get them changed. Taxes have a long history. Take it up with the founding fathers and the constitution.

59 to 41% — in Kansas.

The GOP have to face reality at some point about the unpopularity of their policies.

Communism explicitly aims to socialize the bourgeoisie, that is to say, repress and steal from the upper middle and rich classes and (supposedly) give to the poor working class. — Tzeentch

That has little to do with communism, in my view. So here it really is a matter of meaning.

What do you believe? — Tzeentch

I believe power should be legitimate. More specifically, at least in the shorter term, I’m in favor of democracy— including democracy at the workplace, where workers have a role in determining what’s produced, how it's produced, where it's produced, and where the profits go.

As it stands, we're in the Sociopathic Capitalism era where corporate governance has adopted the Friedman doctrine and wealth inequality has soared to heights not seen since the pyramids. That's 40 years of neoliberalism. We see the effects all around us. I'm against that.

Who is more philosophically significant in the modern world? — Bret Bernhoft

Niether, really. As a comedian, Bill was and is one of my favorites.

I wouldn't say Rogan is "celebrated," he's just a fairly open guy who talks to anyone (but mostly other comedians), came at a time when podcasting wasn't huge yet, and had some guests do and say some crazy stuff on his show (like Elon Musk). So he's popular, and because he occasionally has ultra conservative guests and says some things about trans people -- and likes cars and is a big guy with tattoos who can kick ass, etc., he appeals to teens and many on the Right. I wouldn't call him philosophically relevant.

Bill Hicks and Joe Rogan both spoke (at one point or another) about the importance of manifesting one's mind through the use of pragmatism, tools and self-reflection. — Bret Bernhoft

I'm not sure what you mean by any of this.

Those darned advertisers convincing people they need pointless luxuries! — Tzeentch

Yes?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could take all of that money and instead use it for useful things? — Tzeentch

No.

your characterization of advertising as a means to sell people things they don't need suggests you both consider people too stupid to make such choices for themselves and yourself an expert on determining what is best for others. — Tzeentch

It’s like arguing people are too stupid to choose between republicans and democrats. That’s really not the point.

Choices are simply not given. That’s not the fault of the people.

In terms of creating desires for useless stuff— “fashionable consumption,” etc. — this has a long history, has been studied, documented; not a controversial remark. They admit to it outright.

The fact that you resist something so obvious has already shown you have no real leg up stand on.

You may be a closet authoritarian, I'm afraid. — Tzeentch

Whatever you like. Your feelings are irrelevant.

If you're the hippie commune type I take all of that back, — Tzeentch

You’re free to ask me what I believe directly— this way you don’t have to guess. But you do you. Create whatever fantasy you want.

Collectivism isn't the same as communism, and China isn't communist (anymore). — Tzeentch

Not the same, but an example.

And yes, China is communist.

But if you want to compare the domestic policies of the US with China and suggest they're similar then that is laughable. — Tzeentch

A big mess of repression, surveillance, authoritarianism, genocide, etc. — Tzeentch

After your endless displays of Trump boot-licking you would have us believe that you’re some sort of anarchist? I suppose it’s good that you recognize your lack of responsibility though, very Trumpian. — praxis

Bullseye. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

But please, we should all be encouraging the Trump supporters not to vote. It is absolutely moral to force yourself not to vote for fascists, as much as you may love them.