I was going for the flippant answer "half a brain" as an initial idea, which on introspection isn't even that bad.

Happy to learn more about Sulawesi but isn't it arbitrary? Because that behaviour presupposes other behaviour that came before it. Maybe they drew in the sand before that in Spain and we'll never know. And cave art is complex so why not lesser steps leading up to cave art? So why not that earlier behaviour? Leads to a bit of regress, I'm afraid.

When I was still working for the ministry of finance, they had a tendency to resist right to information requests, leading to those requests becoming broader and more work.

Luckily one of the highest civil servants shared my view. The first step I suggested, and the most difficult, was, how do I do my job that I can freely talk about it when having drinks with a friend? Eg., on an everyday basis I shouldn't be working in such a way that nobody except my boss is allowed to know what I'm doing. That's asking for trouble with respect to accountability.

Second, we changed the process, instead of resisting information requests, we started calling those who submitted them. "Hey, you're asking for a ton of information, I think we can all save time. If you tell me what you're trying to find out, I'll try to collect everything that's relevant to it and then if you still feel things are missing, just give me call, OK?" Handling time of information requests has been halved as a result. Whether the first point has made collecting information easier I don't know because it's hard to measure. Alas, that's only one ministry and the high level civil servant that thought it was important has left.

The only problem with porn is its simplistic narratives,. Plumber gets sex because woman doesn't have cash, casting director gets sex because she really wants the job, secretary makes mistakes and gets forgiven if she gives boss a blowjob, teachers and students, stepfantasies of dads having sex with their daughters, etc.

All examples of unhealthy power relations or sex as payment and most of it has little eros, or God forbid, actual love. This creates expectations about sex being transactional and no idea about moral issues if there are schewed power relations.

Edit: that's not to say there isn't porn with healthier depictions. It's just very rare.

Fidgetting with knobs and switches isn't going to change what is a structural problem. They're dealing with symptoms and if that's the best on offer then workers will continue to get shafted.

What about it? In my view, partners will be jointly and severally liable for the partnership, which are also those who have a right to the profits. Now we have shareholders with a full right to all the profits and at most potential loss of equity and all the costs related to bankruptcy are externalised to creditors. We see similar effects with statutory limitations on liability for environmental disasters. These are in effect wealth transfers to shareholders.

No, I want to prohibit for-profit corporations in toto. Corporations, eg. entities with limited liability, should only be allowed if they perform a public function but those are still not allowed to make profit. The idea is that the profit is found in the resulting public good that everybody benefits from.

Governments have always been perpetual, that's their primary nature and not something to be avoided. Government owned companies obviously can't be for-profit because you get the same problem. The role of government is a political question that I'm happy to discuss but not sure we should start on it. Here's two decent articles from a libertarian to avoid the guilt by association people reflexively feel if I'd post something Marcist.

It is based on partnerships because most of the states, thus "public administrations" are not effective enough or they hold so much debts that it is impossible to maintain an order in the markets. The state's presence is not necessary for everything. Despite the fact our governments can approve laws to intervene them, the results didn't end up well, for example: Venezuela with a high rate of inflation and zero control in currencies or Argentina, 96 % of inflation and a structure where middle class doesn't even exists. — javi2541997

I have no idea what this has to do with what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for governments to do more than to abolish laws allowing incorporation of for-profit entities. (well, as a first step).

There's nothing wrong with partnerships wanting to make profit. For-profit corporations are the problem due to limited liability and perpetual nature. The limited liability was originally a gift from the government in return for the chartered entity to perform public works, like building a road, there's no quid pro quo between the government (representing the wider interests of society) and the corporation anymore. Hence, disband them as they are a blight on social structures and a cause of the majority of socio-economic problems.

Hey, did you know the COP is going to be chaired by an OIL executive? Because that makes total sense.

Decorporate every company. Only companies that are non-profit and fulfill a general public utility should exist and once their goal is reached closed. Instead of limiting capitalist power, we've concentrated it even further. And we don't need them. We had an industrial revolution based on partnerships.

It's not like cutting one's hair. — unenlightened

But it should be, right?

A typical patient in the US is already a mother, over 20, unmarried, relatively poor and attended some college. Oh shit, it's family planning! So you rather have her make her own life and that of her other kids worse because you made it up, literally by sucking it out of your thumb, that it's a mental issue. These women are making rational choices about what's best for them and the rest of their family despite a society in which large segments frown upon it.

And then there's teenage pregnancies due to stupidity or accidents. Also, mental issue.

How many of us haven't had unprotected sex with another that didn't result in a lasting relationship? And then if my ex wants to get an abortion she has mental issues. I don't think so.

Check our the Romans, Greeks and Assyrians who had abortions. Not the Persians. But native Americans did, what we at least know from the 1600s.

So yes, as far as we're concerned in the West, it's a Christian thing. And yes, abortion was permitted in other cultures. I never claimed all of them or that Christianity was the only religion that prohibited it.

Why is a woman automatically "unhappy" when she wants an abortion? How about she just doesn't want one? Why isn't that a good enough reason? Why should there be emotional trauma to begin with? That makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, if there would be any mental issues they're sooner caused by the incessant moralising about what a woman's role should be (eg. bear offspring), which is just Christian values internalised. Historically, abortions were common in all walks of life, poor, slaves and nobility and across cultures.

I think it's a load of bull. Christianity has made abortion a moral issue. It never was one before and all of a sudden wanting an abortion is equated with a mental issue. The issue is that it shouldn't be up for debate if a woman wants to jank a fetus from her uterus.

That makes sense to me. I can sympathise with reluctant support somewhat. Do you think it's in no one's "character" to transition? Further, is gender part of someone's character (vs sex)? Like... is it in my character to have male gender identity? — fdrake

@unenlightened I'm not symphatising with reluctant support as your proposed "solutions" don't solve being unwanted pregnant for 9 months and then going through the hell that's labour. It's not about the unborn kids or fetuses, it's about the rights to your own body. And it's not as if abortion is anything new. It was entirely without moral consideration before the church but good to see Christian values are firmly rooted in your mind through cultural conductivity.

Aha, for me democratic participation includes activism and (grass roots) organisation and unionisation but good to know it elicits other connotations so I can clarify that next time.

There's no such thing as Marxism because he continuously changed his view on what ought to be done but his critique of capitalism is very good. Marx as a tool to discuss economics, like any other economic theory, is extremely valuable. No economic theory is complete or right because they are based on simplified assumptions about human economic behaviour. The elevation of certain economic theories as "true" and subsequentily being used as guiding principle of political decision making (at the exclusion of moral considerations) is the source of a majority of the problems we currently face.

Principles cost money; if we only pursue economic effectivity we will end up morally bankrupt with injustice the norm.

declassification powers Trump — NOS4A2

Irrelevant since he didn't declassify them.

So last Great Depression it didn't happen here, but it did happen in Russian and millions died. So, sure, this time it will happen in the right way, or whatever Marxist thought says. — Hanover

Maybe read Marx instead of relying on the caricature US society has made of him?

The subsidization of farming is to protect a dysfunctional industry that society isn't willing to allow to adjust to true economic forces. The net result of ending subsidies would be the loss of many unprofitable farms, but that wouldn't result in a lack of food.

In any event, subsidies bear no resemblance to the forced collectivization of farming, which did in fact lead to starvation of 10s of millions of people. — Hanover

Are they unprofitable or are they forced to price their goods lower than they would because of competition from counties that don't have all sorts of EHS and labour standards and you want to ensure a critical industry continues to exist in your county?

But isn't that just "politics by other means"?

Nevertheless, we've seen significant progress in environmental, health and safety standards, labour conditions, welfare, etc. under that restrictive framework. And that route has generally been through legislative action hence the importance of government and democratic participation.

There's nothing inconsistent about it. I'm highlighting the most important difference between the two and why they aren't the same. Yet you prefer to ignore the difference so you can cry shame like a retarded Spanish inquisitioner.

What's shameful is to equate Biden's lawyer's action to immediately call NARA upon discovery of the documents with Trump's refusal to return the documents after repeated requests.

I have my hopes up for regenerative economic activity. Economic activity as caretaker of the world for future generations.

So the question is why you need to be this recalcitrant trying to explain economics to someone who actually worked with asset managers. It makes for tedious discussion. If you think the problem you're describing is new (50 years old) then you're ignoring a lot of history. I'd like to avoid reinventing the wheel. We've seen the same economic problems of today during the industrial revolution, during the times of the robber barons and now again. Take a cue or don't but I'm done. It's fucking annoying talking to someone who only thinks he knows a lot about economics.

As a defensive force you only need to field a third of any offensive force. Assuming EU members will support each other, how far/close are we to such a figure?

I don't recall Marx claiming that shareholders care solely about profit at the expense of everything else? — Mikie

Really? What do you think his surplus value extraction was all about? Not about profit?

I don't think Marx was so prescient he wrote about problems that didn't exist until 100 years later. The industrialisation accelerated the outsized role of capitalists. And to be honest, I think we can go even a bit further back to the for-profit thinking with the first stock markets in the beginning of the 18th century but economic thinking was not yet entrenched in society at large then. That happened during the latter half of the industrial revolution which is why I prefer that as the starting point where capitalism (free markets, incorporation and for-profit statutes) really became part of the collective psyche and more or less coincided with Western governments passing generalised incorporation laws (second half of the 19th century). Since governments are usually slow on the uptake, it seems a safe bet by then it reflected the view of the majority of those privileged to vote.

Says 200 years of reinforced economic theory (market economics) married now successfully to neoliberalism aka "culture".

Let's say only a handful of people own the property. I'm not assuming everyone is equal, I'm asking how distribution of profits is decided -- and by whom. — Mikie

That's defined in the statutes of the company and usually lies with the executive board members. But they are voted in by the shareholders, so any shareholder with sufficient voting rights will effectively decide on the board members, so board members are incentivised to make shareholders happy. Shareholders generally only want profit to the exclusion of all else. Legislation can curb the profit motive through legal requirements. So indirectly governments will have a say on how profit is distributed. In a globalised economy, however, the ability of governments to set requirements is limited by companies' ability to relocate abroad.

Under all this lies a legal framework that allows incorporation of for-profit entities in the first place and assumptions about the efficacy of capitalist and market organisation to the extent that it affects moral valuation. It's the economy, stupid.

I'm contrasting that with equity.

You could do that with a loan too, which will have a pre-defined interest and end date instead of giving the right to perpetually earn whatever executives feel they have to promise in dividends to shareholders, to ensure they get insanely high wages in return for their class treason.

It's on the previous page of this thread...

Yes. That genius truly shines through when you're silent.

Such politicians are a product of culture. We lack leadership and fidelity towards others. Not in the sense of vision but someone that can bind society together and respect for others. Moral behaviour is minimalism in western society. It's let me do everything I like as long as I don't harm another (too much because everybody should be tolerant so mostly it's others not being tolerant that's the problem, according to them). You get that sort of individualism married to toxic (monetary) value systems. We even see outgrowths of that in philosophy, specifically free speech absolutism and anti-natalism, which is just me-me-me.

It reminds me of the universe 25 experiments with mice basically.

Actually, I think Spain is less corrupt in some areas. It's for instance much more open about what it pays for public procurement. Over 80% is published, which is about 45% for the Netherlands. If you're not transparent, you're more likely to act corrupt.

Edit; correction, 85% and 52%, more or less.

The Netherlands is every bit as corrupt as Spain and Mark Rutte is one of the most unethical prime ministers we've ever had. His opinion on ethical issues should be disregarded on principle. I wish he'd keel over and die.

I understand from your post though that taxes aren't the issue but how the government spends its money. I think I already stated early on in this thread that the really relevant question is: what should governments do? And then in a democracy we say that's whatever people vote for. Resulting in a situation where nobody gets what they want nor believes the government does what it should and everybody complains (even the filthy rich!). The alternatives are living in authoritarian regimes, where an elite gets what they want, one way or the other but not likely either of us will be in the winning side. Long live democracy I suppose...

Simply not true: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Spain&country2=Japan&city1=Madrid&city2=Tokyo&tracking=getDispatchComparison

You are grossly overestimating the cost of living in Tokyo compared to say Madrid (and Barcelona is pretty close to that). That's, as far as I know, the most expensive city in Spain.

On 65k EUR I could comfortably live in Amsterdam and support 2 kids and a wife, which is more expensive than Tokyo (and Madrid) but not stay in the best neighbourhood. Median income in the Netherlands is about 40k (pre-tax) in the Netherlands. So yes, 65k EUR is "rich" - especially if you move to the suburbs or away from the most expensive parts of the biggest cities. I think you're spending too much time on Instagram and have a skewed idea of what rich is. Rich is being able to provide comfortably for a family. It's not having a second home, a yacht and a bugatti.

The 1 million yen per child offered by the Japanese government is not to meet cost of living but a one-off incentive for families to move out of Tokyo to less populated and ageing areas. It's not comparable to rent support at all.

Holy fuck. 200k earning per year is really rich. That's C-level pay. Especially in Spain. How are you not considering this as rich?