/b/ & /high/ Random & High Stuff
Logitech G933 Artemis Spectrum 7.1 Headset Giveaway!
Now Playing on /b/tube -
Science: Ok, for every one dollar spent on cutting emmisions and consumption right now, you capitalists will save 2 dollars down the line.Capitalism: You say we get a return in a generation? Lol no wew lad, the party must go on.
>>4812295What’s your point? Doesn’t everyone just kind of know that’s whats going on?
science: emissions are fucking the globe uppoliticians: this is a good way to raise revenue while paying lip service at the same timepeople: fuck you
>>4812296Science: You're fucking it up.People: Yeah, but fucking hell I just bought this new iPhone you know, and I have to absolutely eat meat each day.
>>4812304corporations: Yeah, we'd love to stop, but there's no way we can unless every person individually stops buying our cheaper products, driving, or using electricity, and starts buying our more profitable versions that are slightly less damaging to the environment.
>>4812311The obvious solution is to levy taxes on the people that disproportionately affect the poor.
>>4812313Or just spread some space terror aids that spreads during a long (months) incubation period and kills quickly when it manifests.
Science: We gotta spend a shitload of your money to do a bunch of stuff that only we really understandEveryone else: uh dude I gotta buy groceries still and shit...
Only way to prevent catastrophic climate change is a global planned economy planned around ecological constraints. Capitalism can not account for environmental damage and regulatory capture makes intervention from civil society at best a short term solution.
>>4812331I should probably note that every single time you see stupid frog posting or this ylilauta meme connected to some shitpost that it's probably a krautchan refugee since they killed that site. Also cutting emissions doesn't make your grocery bill go up you idiot in fact climate change has already been increasing prices. I bet you're also too dumb to notice that things like tubs of ice cream or jars of pesto have been reduced in size over the years.
>>4812313Don't worry, we can offset the effects of those taxes by cutting taxes on the rich.
>>4812337>Also cutting emissions doesn't make your grocery bill go up you idiotPeople are discussing carbon taxes and referencing the 25 cent tax that Macron tried to institute in France. That doesn't mean that your grocery bill goes it, it means the tax would have chipped away at the expendable income of people already hurting. Try to keep up.
>Also cutting emissions doesn't make your grocery bill go up you idiot
>>4812337>I bet you're also too dumb to notice that things like tubs of ice cream or jars of pesto have been reduced in size over the years.Good? I mean, I don't need a gallon of pesto. Nobody needs a gallon of pesto. Also:>THAT PIC REEEE KRAUTCHAN REFUGEEChill out and smoke more dude, what the fuck man. Are we really at this point where we're judging the random images we pick from our folders to make up where we think other posters came from? Gross. That's like catty 14 year old girl shit where they just make up stuff just so they can be unpleasant to each other.Real talk.
>I bet you're also too dumb to notice that things like tubs of ice cream or jars of pesto have been reduced in size over the years.
>THAT PIC REEEE KRAUTCHAN REFUGEE
>>4812370>Good? I mean, I don't need a gallon of pesto. Nobody needs a gallon of pesto. It's a bit different if they make the container smaller while keeping the price and packaging exactly the same.You haven't chosen to buy less pesto, you're defending companies who deceived you into paying more for less.
>Good? I mean, I don't need a gallon of pesto. Nobody needs a gallon of pesto.
>>4812340It is honestly amazing just what level of scrum these people are, but of course Americans will never do anything about it. I think this is partly due to the lottery. They run shit like Powerball so 300 million Americans think they're just a multi millionaire in waiting and don't do shit about being fucked in the ass.s>>4812370>reeeYeah I'm going to note when you dont sound like you're from here. /qq/ about it all you want.
>>4812374Shhh, let him shill. Let him defend big corporations and their lies.
>>4812374Damn nigga who took away your pesto? You know you can make that shit yourself, right? Like just grow some basil and get some good olive oil and grind up some pine nuts into that shit.I don't think people are gonna riot in the streets over their pesto. Unless they're like italian or something. And even then I don't think they'd riot. They'd just be like "eh we'll just crush up some other shit to put on our spaghetti. Momma mia."Or I guess idk reee corporations r bad people orangemanbad.png /pol/ buzzword of the month.tiff abolish all profit am i rite?
>>4812379I made my own pesto last night out of a bunch of herbs and pistachiosused the good ass parmesan cheese, good shit
>>4812379>Or I guess idk reee corporations r bad people orangemanbad.png /pol/ buzzword of the month.tiff abolish all profit am i rite? I told you guys it was a poltard.>>4812374This. And the companies have been doing it hoping to keep up the idiot USA USA USA charade while prices go up and quality goes down. Actually what may end up happening is climate change causing massive beer shortages. That people would riot overhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/15/climate-change-to-cause-dramatic-beer-shortages-extreme-weather-priceActually I think the UK just did have a beer shortage but I forget if it was related.
>Or I guess idk reee corporations r bad people orangemanbad.png /pol/ buzzword of the month.tiff abolish all profit am i rite?
>>4812379he's not really talking about pesto dude its more like metaphorical pesto for your mental pasta
>>4812383The pesto's still good at my house, dudebroskiI'm sorry to hear about your pesto. My condolences. Want me to send you some pesto?
Posting in a pesto thread
>>4812385It's not just about that or the ice cream or whatever. Why did none of you mention the ice cream on a stoner board? And it applies to everything. You're paying more for a smaller quantity of tons of shit.
>>4812390Cause the pesto is better.Dude what if they made pesto ice cream? That'd be the tits.
>>4812389what the fuck is this abomination>no basil whatsoever>5 parts parsley per 1 part herbs with actual flavour>pistachios instead of pine nuts
>no basil whatsoever>5 parts parsley per 1 part herbs with actual flavour>pistachios instead of pine nuts
I'm all about saving the planet and shit but what the fuck do extra taxes on carbon do? You are driving the cost of living up for every single lower/middle class person in e ery possible faucet. You get hit at the pump and then get hit again in the grocery store due to higher costs of fuel and shipping. You have to be daft to think that corporations aren't going to pass cost on to the people.The real solution is to put regulations in your high pollution countries like the USA and China. The government should also provide incentives to people for switching to solar power and should be putting out programs to plant more trees. But no, nobody actually wants to put work into making things better they just want to bitch about the hot button issue and move onto the next thing in two weeks.
>>4812393It's that fart fuck alton brown, who creates all sorts of food abominations
>>4812394Monetary calculation by itself can't account for ecological costs or externalities (e.g. the costs incurred from climate change or pollution). The solution that doesn't sacrifice the capitalist mode of production in favor of a planned economy is introducing taxes that force producers to take these concerns into account through an administered price, for example, a $0.40 tax on every ton of carbon dioxide emissions.>The government should also provide incentives to people for switching to solar power and should be putting out programs to plant more treesBoth of these things exist in the form of tax credits. Programs to plant more trees, often called "carbon offset" programs, have been a thing for decades. They were parodied on King of the Hill, where Buck Strickland buys forest land to make money as a carbon offset and attempts to throw a concert there that ends poorly.
>The government should also provide incentives to people for switching to solar power and should be putting out programs to plant more trees
>>4812395You better cry for his nuggies or you're appropriating the native american of using every part.
>>4812397>The solution that doesn't sacrifice the capitalist mode of production in favor of a planned economy is introducing taxes that force producers to take these concerns into account through an administered price, for example, a $0.40 tax on every ton of carbon dioxide emissions.But they aren't going to take these concerns into account. I think people forget that corporations are fucking evil and will do everything in their power to meet their bottom line. If costs go up for them they aren't going to find other methods to reduce their emissions, they are going to apply it directly to the consumer. They aren't going to sacrifice their whatever million dollar bonus to purchase fuel efficient trucks for their fleet or whatever else. Being Canadian we already have a bunch of taxes on our fuel, so for the government to come out and say "we are putting an additional tax on fuel for the environment" is insulting because the already existing taxes on fuel should have had a portion allocated to emission reductions.I hate to sound like a capitalist here but all these carbon taxes are is more tax grabs for the government. If they wanted more money for the environment they should have looked first to ways to cut government spending, because there is a LOT of wastage. Making the average man poorer than he already is isn't fixing any problems.
>The solution that doesn't sacrifice the capitalist mode of production in favor of a planned economy is introducing taxes that force producers to take these concerns into account through an administered price, for example, a $0.40 tax on every ton of carbon dioxide emissions.
>>4812402Hello friend I have one quick question are you from Alberta?
>>4812407No. I'm from the east and I see the impact irresponsible taxation has on a province.>>4812408Doesn't change the fact that it happens you retard. Maybe instead of pushing for carbon tax you should be pushing for regulations on corporations then. Fuck sake man. I don't even live that well and all I can afford is an overpriced case of beer after all my bills are paid. If taxes go any higher I will go bankrupt.
>>4812393I literally made his recipe last night and it is good as fuck dudeget on the AB level or keep eating like a bitch I don't really care
>>4812432Idk man I genuinely like Alton brown but I can't condone that, I'm guessing it was a pistachio themed episode or something but there's just no justifying all that parsley, it's filler plain and simple.
>>4812394>You have to be daft to think that corporations aren't going to pass cost on to the people.Every time a company shrinks the size of their pesto container, does the price go down?Prices are set to maximize profits regardless of expenses.If a company can charge hundreds of dollars for something that costs pennies to produce, they have and will.If that company's costs go up 10x, they won't increase the price, because that will decrease their profits.If that company's costs go down 10x, they won't decrease their price, because that will decrease their profits.
>You have to be daft to think that corporations aren't going to pass cost on to the people.
>>4812437I work at a high end Italian restaurant and make pesto the regular way almost every daybut I currently have AB's pistachio pesto in my fridge and I'd argue it's bettertasting is believing, maybe whip up a batch and try for yourself
>>4812443yeah I work at a real classy joint too and we make ours with walnuts and cashews.I'm allergic to tree nuts so yeah IDK
We're past the point of no returnThere is just no going back now. We are destined to wipe ourselves out within this century. Our fate is sealed and we have sealed it ourselves. Just enjoy your lives while you can before shit hits the fan.
>>4812393>doesn't realize that pesto does not automatically mean pesto alla genovese and it refers to an entire family of italian ground sauces that descend directly from the Roman period, some of which have basil and some of which do not>but I work in an American restaurant
>doesn't realize that pesto does not automatically mean pesto alla genovese and it refers to an entire family of italian ground sauces that descend directly from the Roman period, some of which have basil and some of which do not>but I work in an American restaurant
>>4812441That makes sense for companies like Apple or Nike but as far as I know grocery stores are entirely logistics based. Maybe it's unrelated but I have personally noticed a spike in certain grocery items when the price of gas increases. I used to work for Wal-Mart and they had an entire department dedicated to pricing and they would go around constantly changing prices on shit. I'll use fruit as an example, when the price of gas was cheap here so was fruit, and when it skyrocketed we were paying like $8 for a bag of 5 apples.
>>4812478That's a bit silly to think. In 100 years we'll probably have massive plants capable of converting gases in the atmosphere into other gases, like CO2 scrubbers on the space station. We may have screwed the pooch with plastics but it's certainly not the end. The earth will conform to us and we'll adapt. We're capable of survivng pretty much anything, and life has persisted on Earth through much more extreme climate changes than what we're creating.
>>4812488It's gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better though.Sadly enough humanity often needs tragedy and suffering before conforming to big change.
>>4812485I never said any of those fucking things I said parsley is filler, ass hole
>>4812495it's flat leaf italian parsleyit has a decent amount more flavor than standard parsley
Everybody knows shit's fucked.
>>4812514I don't give a good god-damn, your Uncle Sam is a motherfucker.
>>4812517Why the fuck is it near impossible to find the original? Did it get removed? Searches were pretty fruitlesshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWxISwEBU0U
>>4812525>3 Dec 2014That is the original isn't it?
>3 Dec 2014
>>4812517Uncle Sam touched me
>>4812295Actually doubling your money in a generation is not a great return by investment standards.
>>4812311Sanctimonious fucktards: it's evil when korpurashuns do it but not when poor people are on the other end of the same transaction.
>>4812653>Sanctimonious fucktards: its evil when someone rapes someone but not when the rapee is on the other end of the same transaction
>Sanctimonious fucktards: its evil when someone rapes someone but not when the rapee is on the other end of the same transaction
>>4812656>consensual buying is rape>>4812657>advertising cues and peer pressure exists so consent is a lieYou may only have one.
>consensual buying is rape
>advertising cues and peer pressure exists so consent is a lie
>>4812370BITCH I NEED A GALLON OF PESTO YOU DON"T KNOW ME
>>4812672If you eat enough pesto your farts smell like basil. True story
>>4812647This. Cargo cult thinking is fucking out of control these days and so fucking many people use it as a coping mechanism to hand-waive away their problems. It's like "Oh man my shit is all fucked up but it's okay, I'm just gonna sit on my hands and do nothing and wait until elon musk personally delivers me my government-paid-for hover-tesla that I'm totally maybe probably definitely most likely entitled to get. After all they're gonna have to give it to me, otherwise the planet is fucked! Any day now...but I guess I'll complain endlessly on the internet about my situation in the meantime. Space communism is coming any day now...."
>>4812676Why do you think I need the gallon of pesto?
Regardless of the system, I think humanity would've fucked itself. People don't really think long-term, especially if it's beyond their lifetime. LIke I understand why people wanna "hur-dur, fuck capitalism! We're screwed because of it!" but I highly doubt if we were somehow a functioning socialist state anything would be better.
>>4812695(Adding to my original statement.) If anything, it could be worse. Instead of options, people could literally decide "we can't use alternative energy quite yet because we need to produce enough for everyone." Like it would've been the same storm, just a different attitude.
Computer scientists: We can fix global warming with AI!
>>4812695Socialism would seriously have improved the response against global warming because socialist/social democratic governments plan ahead far more than liberal/libertarian governments, due to their differing philosophical goals. Nevermind that socialist/social democratic governments will have an instinctive distrust for corporations unlike liberal/libertarian governments who are happy to swallow corporate bullshit over scientific fact.
Humanity will not die but we will suffer immensely over the coming years. Laissez Faire capitalism and it's core movement will continue to ignore science climate change until it becomes bad enough. And by bad enough, I mean it becomes to such a situation where basic amenities become profitable, such as clean air. By 2060 a significant portion of wildlife will have become extinct and coal deposits start to run dry, for us to survive we'll need to need to adapt. To do this I predict we'll do the followingViable nuclear fusion will be invented, but far past the deadline of making a reasonable difference. It will mitigate potential issues, but will create problems - such as pure fusion weapons. This will disrupt MAD and perhaps cause a cold war.With regards to war, many proxy wars such as what's happening in Yemen and in Ukraine will continue, causing mass migration. Nobody will be willing to disrupt MAD until either A) the above occurs B) Viable defense systems against nukes is invented (short of shooting them down, this is enters the realm of science fiction) or C) Some horrible asshole invents a new bioweaponCarbon technology (which we see in nanofibres) will become far more mainstream. CO2 sequestration will enable this, but is more likely to be produced from the remainder of fossil fuel burning and other outletsLab meat will become viable and readily available. By 2060, I'll say many slaughterhouses will be outpaced by laboratories, real meat becoming a luxury. Despite this, I'd say the lab meat will be of high standard. It will face similar challenges as GMOs with paranoia. MRSA-type superbugs will be widespread due to the increasing ineffectivity of antibiotics. Many will die. CRISPR will hopefully have come to fruition so we have genome based medicine to combat this.Food shortages due rapid desertification, increased salinity and temperature of oceans causing flooding, increased hurricanes, I can go on, but that will created unmitigated migration. It won't be a case of 3rd world vs 1st world, it will be a case of living fertile lands vs dead ones.
>>4812725(Adding to my original statement.) Of course, would it be enough of an response? Who knows. But it cannot be worse than the USA with King Retard at the stern.
>>4812728oh look another internet prophet
>>4812725Just don't involve Communist Russia in this. Worst offenders for destroying the environment have actually been USSR and PRC.
>>4812728Don't forget the American South-East becoming a deathzone of water and storms, and the West coast burning down to the ground. Tropical diseases will cross over to non-tropic areas up North, crops will fail and ruin the agricultural sector.We have one upcoming saviour that can destroy the fossil fuel lobby, and that is the insurance lobby. They have even more money and power, and when the scales tip, they'll tear the fossil fuel industry a new asshole.Because the amount of flooding and fire that they had to pay for this year will happen every year - and it'll get more costly and deadly with each passing year.
>science: the earth is warming up a bit, we'll figure it out though, carbon capture and shiet, in the meantime go easy on the pollution>overemotional manchildren: zomg le earth is dying mother nature has forsaken us!11!!! we must literally discard ALL things convenient and civilized and starve ourselves even though most global warming is due to water evaporation which we can't ever truly stop>politicians: ZOMG THIS IS ALL A LIE BY THE CHINESE!!11!!! \or/ ZOMG EAT LE RICH CAPITALISTSZ CORPORATIONS R EVIL REEEI unironically believe about 70% of people are stupid to the point of disability, literally retarded, I mean 100IQ (arbitrary statistic but w/e) is the 'norm' but a person with 100 IQ is usually fucking stupid, and IQ hardly reflects impulse control. I fucking despise these people for their drive to steal from the accomplished yet can't help but feel bad for those so idiotic, blind and ignorant that they think 'capitalism is evil and bad!!11!!!' or something. I mean, they're really delusional - they're always on about 'evil' bosses, or how everyone's out to get them. it's fucked. fact is, a minimum wage idiot lives better than a medieval king. 'but I don't wanna work! I wanna fish and hunt without becoming neither proffession!' newsflash asshead, you won't catch anything. because you're a fucking idiot. your motor skills are probably impaired by how utterly idiotic you are. your entire brain is a fucking rudiment. these types of 'people' are literal animated flesh, utter cattle, holy fuck. i mean, did you know the uk is down to pre-industrial revolution air quality? and we don't even sacrifice all things civilized to the holy spirit of mother nature or whatever, like SHUT THE FUCK UP seriously, all you circlejerk STEMmies, STEM is literally for people who are marginally above the rest in intellect. you're all emotionally stunted, shortsighted math-freaks. the real pillars of society are lawyers, doctors, economists, prostitutes etc, not iving fucking code-slaves or human calculatorsi hope you all burn
>science: the earth is warming up a bit, we'll figure it out though, carbon capture and shiet, in the meantime go easy on the pollution>overemotional manchildren: zomg le earth is dying mother nature has forsaken us!11!!! we must literally discard ALL things convenient and civilized and starve ourselves even though most global warming is due to water evaporation which we can't ever truly stop>politicians: ZOMG THIS IS ALL A LIE BY THE CHINESE!!11!!! \or/ ZOMG EAT LE RICH CAPITALISTSZ CORPORATIONS R EVIL REEE
>>4812728you are a barely-educated fucking idiot, shut up and die, die a thousand times, you loud-mouthed circlejerk-tier pseud moron, you don't know half the facts about these things, you're fucking stupid, doctoring facts to suit your narrow little cone of pessimism and misanthropy, die a million times, suffer
>>4812731oh look a cynical asshole who posts anime traps, aren't you original.I'm just speaking my mind nigga. Most of what I said is pretty common knowledge. I ain't preaching, this ain't no sermon.
>>4812738Noone is saying the Earth is dying. DNA based life here on Earth has survived 99% of all life going extinct.Humanity is going extinct. Like George Carlin said, "The Earth isn't going away... WE ARE!" The way things are looking now, humanity might live for another 10,000 to 100,000 years. That's so short, we won't even produce any fossils for aliens to find.Aliens will dig down, and just discover a radioactive layer of microplastics and oxidized metals, and have no clue who created that industrialized layer.
>>4812743>implying post-scarcity and/or full mechanisation and/or transcendence of the human experience will STILL not be a thing by 10000 years in the futurelmao @ you
>implying post-scarcity and/or full mechanisation and/or transcendence of the human experience will STILL not be a thing by 10000 years in the future
>>4812746You can only achieve post-scarcity in a society that invests continuously into science. A society that respects and knows science.We don't have that kind of society. There is always the risk that scientific progress will flicker and then fade, as austerity programs are set in motion to keep profits flowing in a dying world ravaged by climate change, until eventually technological progress becomes technological decay and we begin reverting in knowledge.
>>4812738>science: the earth is warming up a bit, we'll figure it out though, carbon capture and shiet, in the meantime go easy on the pollution>the earth: all the fucking animals died>>4812750your butt tension is absolutely at least like a 120
>science: the earth is warming up a bit, we'll figure it out though, carbon capture and shiet, in the meantime go easy on the pollution>the earth: all the fucking animals died
>>4812738>science: the earth is warming up a bit, we'll figure it out though, carbon capture and shiet, in the meantime go easy on the pollutionSee pic related. By no means will this mean the end of the world, but it will be the end of modern living and luxuries. ..How did you manage to type so much but say so little?>>4812741Touched a nerve did I? Care to dispute any, literally any of my points? Even the more far fetched ones, you seem like a level head chap.
>science: the earth is warming up a bit, we'll figure it out though, carbon capture and shiet, in the meantime go easy on the pollution
>>4812752a-a-are you citing xkcd as a source or..??And that graph is wrong
>>4812750Oh, so we're doing this? You, being a typical fucking moron, are going to resort to arbitrary notions of grammar without contributing much at all to the discussion. Ironically, my post was semi-prophetic - you're just the type to overdramatize at the earliest convenience. But pray tell, how am I a 'primary school dropout'? How is global warming a 'mass-extinction event' (to the extent that it concerns our extinction)? Oh, and what points to my 'low IQ' in my post? I'm sorry but I have to say, the sheer fury the image of your kin stirs within me such great discord that the very essence of appropriate presentaion escapes me. I will reiterate - I simply detest the pathologically stupid, alarmist masses. And your reluctance to construct a good case against mine (admittedly chaotic, nigh-illegible rant) shows your likely disposition to the so-called disease of 'being a moron'.
>>4812755I feel like you copy/pasted this from /r/iamverysmart
>>4812755Global warming isn't a mass-extinction event, you fucking retarded mongoloid chucklefuck.Global warming, and microplastics, and habitat loss, and overhunting, and light pollution, and sound pollution, and general pollution, all those snowball into one big "fuck all DNA based life bigger than dogs, you'll be extinct in a few thousand years".
>>4812754>>4812752>cites xkcd>unironically says 'chap'>redd.it : the postto be honest I'm just venting unreleased frustrations on your post, nothing personnel kid
>cites xkcd>unironically says 'chap'>redd.it : the post
Butt tension is off the charts all over here
>>4812757shh don't tell him>>4812758>unironically posting something sensible in a brainlet vs brainlet holywar thread
>unironically posting something sensible in a brainlet vs brainlet holywar thread
>>4812754I'm not citing anything. I'm just drawing attention. What's wrong about the graph? AFAIK it's pretty consistent with what we know while also highlighting the acceleration of temperature, which eludes many until it's viewed in such a manner.
It's not just about economic mismanagement, it's about the people doing it. Look at worldwide IQ statistics. Some countries have their average citizen be a literal vegetable. Some a mere idiot. A handful have populations coming quite close to tolerable levels of stupidity. But the absolute majority is so fucking stupid, they go on 420chan and argue about climate change.>b-but IQ is arbitrary, it's pattern recognition!!!if you can't recognise a literal fucking tile pattern, you're 99% likely to be a fucking plant of a human being, case closed
>b-but IQ is arbitrary, it's pattern recognition!!!
>>4812761So what you're telling me that there was nothing wrong with what I said, that you're just having an episode?Good to know. nb
>>4812769we live in a free world, a man can have his shitfit without needing a reason
>>4812768Real talk are you on meth, guy?
>>4812770Hello friend just one quick question are you from Alberta?
>>4812771well suppose I am? I'm not, but if I were would it make the world anyhow a better place? no. even if I am on meth, the vast majority of people are still intolerably dumb. it's horrific - every day I wake knowing I will see people on the bus, out in the streets, at work etc. who are literally stupid to the point of not understanding the concept of causation. there are people, who look quite human, but on the inside are barely surviving on a mix of sizeable loans, drugs, mindless entertainment and 'the funy meme pictoors'. they are not human. they are not even a lifeform, evev virii have greater direction and purpose in life. these 'people' are like ethereal echoes bleeding into the mortal realm, echoes of pure, pure evil. they are hell, and as such I also am in hell, as are you. Sartre said 'the other' is hell. he probably meant something gay like the complexity and pain of human relationships. but I often quote him, meaning that the hell comes from the utter abscence of sapience in our fellow 'men'.
>>4812773>projecting THIS hardafrican americans are of course quite stupid, thanks to their systematic oppression and stupefaction by empires of days now bygone, but as I said, 100IQ (average white euro, muricans are a... different animal) is stil abysmally low. I agree with your thesis - it IS the policymakers' fault, because democracy is meaningless if voters are blind, deaf cattle>>4812772I could be yet am not, unfortunately (?)
>projecting THIS hard
>>4812776>Well suppose i am?A methhead preaching about the utter absence of sapience in their fellow man is probably the funniest shit I've read all day.
>Well suppose i am?
>>4812779you will not take my freedom not to capitalize. i refuse to do so adamantly, even at your inconvenience, specifically because it seems bothersome to some that I do not capitalize. well I won't, merely to anger the pedants among us, for pedantry is, as my contemporaries often say, fucking gay and retarded bullshitwhy the 'genius' dig? I understand Sartre quite well ,if anything he was a 'genius' for making such a fuss over things like 'the stare' and existential nausea. oh man, another being registers you as an object other to themselves? guess it's time to eat mescaline en masse and write gay books
>>4812780a lot of meth users seem weirdly fixated on IQ for some reason
>>4812784and doing meth
>>4812781oh woe is me, I've committed the cardinal sin of misspelling. I shall now disembowel myself to reimburse the offended parties.>>4812780well I reckon it takes some degree of sapience to write about such things, does it not? certainly more than it takes to post 'le smug man #3241' with some vague jab at me in the typical 'get a load of THIS guy lol' fashion without pointing out anything too concrete. I am not on meth, neither have I used it, I'm just greatly upset about these feelings of isolation and abandonment that I suffer by living in a world full of what might as well be 'shadow people'
>>4812778No other words you are another dumbass poltard who wants to try and blame black people for climate change and gradually start that kind of retarded shit when as I said, those countries are not the biggest contributors to climate change, the USA, Europe, and China/South East Asia are. You are flatly fucking wrong. Kill your self.
>>4812790there's really not a lot of point in trying to use logic with someone who's on meth. but carry on if you're enjoying yourself.
>>4812790did you read my reply? i clearly stated it is not the blacks' fault. frankly, being so stupid as they are, it's hard to 'blame' them for anything. there is no mens rea if there is no mens, if you will. i'm not a poltard, i'm an advocate for policy that values the sanctity of human life and individual liberty above all. thing is, the world isn't quite there yet; liberty means nothing to those among us not blessed with understanding languages outside of 'DANK LIT FAM FORTNITE', or whatever shorthand the proletariat uses to express the void within their souls
>>4812402I share your frustration because here in Louisiana the Republican legislature refuses to restructure the tax code to get rid of our Mongolian clusterfuck of tax credits that have drained the state's revenues since Bobby Jindal, our last governor, passed them into law.The problem as I see it is that what we have to do to prevent climate change and all its consequences is so immense and requires such fundamental changes to the way we live our lives that tax incentives and other attempts to coax capitalists into giving a shit about externalities won't make enough difference. We have to reduce the amount of material resources people in the first world especially are accustomed to consuming. I'm not talking about, like, eating less (but eating less meat would probably help). Houses in the first world need to be made energy efficient, private transportation needs to be cut back to a rational minimum, urban sprawl has to be eliminated, cities like LA and Las Vegas may just need to be depopulated.But most importantly the capitalist mode of production has to be abandoned. The only way to solve the myriad of threats to global ecological stability that humanity is now caught up in is by introducing a planned economy that takes environmental consequences of production into account. Capitalism is inherently unable to do this because monetary calculation can not account for environmental degradation.
>>4812790damn its like he saw someone pulling a crazy spergout and was like hell nah that's my job and is trying to out bullshit himbitch where'd you drop your chill
>>4812799>what is the knowledge problem>what are emission trading schemes>what are carbon creditsthe uk has, as I said, pre-industrial pollution level. is it because we live in dystopian hell? no. we're just not an altogether braindead state (yet)command economy isn't just bad, it's downright impossible.
>what is the knowledge problem>what are emission trading schemes>what are carbon credits
>>4812789Maybe you're not on meth, but typing like you're experiencing a comedown and becoming on fixated on things such as man's barometer of intelligence is not a good look friend.I already posted my ruminations above on this thread, something you've gone off a complete tangent about, I don't need to type anything more nuanced, i'm having my cake and eating it. If you're feeling isolated and abandoned, go to a psychologist. Don't throw shit out of the pram because something opposes whatever badshit ideology you follow, because I can't make it out. That, or stop taking meth.
>>4812804much to the woe of the victims of my frequent ranting, modern psychiatry has failed to detect any notable ailments in me several times, excluding the fact that I have an overwhelmingly rare diffuse personality disorder that fortunately yields no delusional symptoms. as such, there is no saving anyone from my innecessant fixations, ranting, psychotic sentence structure etc.
>>4812803Hayek overstated the knowledge problem and information technology solves it straight up. There's no information that's ever really "subjective" and Hayek stands alone in making that argument. For everyone else who uses the term information scientifically, all information is simply objective and can be gathered and made explicit. Like, the specific examples Hayek uses of some technique that exists "only in the head of an engineer" or some such shit? That technique can be easily transcribed and published to a global computer network for all to see.The UK and EU accomplished much of their carbon reductions by offshoring and because their labor markets couldn't compete with the advent of globalization and the opening of cheap labor markets in Asia. Consolidation and rationalization have also reduced the number of firms in carbon intensive industries, to the extent that most market share in e.g. the steel industry is made up of one firm in Europe.Anyway, command economies are totally possible. Mainstream economists only ever credit Mises and Hayek for the calculation problem because they no there's no actual argument against it. Of course while Mises and Hayek were arguing against neoclassical socialists who still believed in the value of a price system, the technical problem of planning requires no prices and can be tackled with linear programming and other mathematical optimization tools. The advent of computers in the second half of the twentieth century was obviously not foreseen by Mises or Hayek and neither lived long enough to see the computational power available to us today. The problem of generating an optimal (or at least satisfactory) plan for an economy with 1,000,000+ goods is one that can be solved by computers today in a matter of seconds, and these calculations utilize more information - information that is not distilled into a single noisy price - than the monetary calculations performed by Hayek's imaginary entrepreneurs.
>>4812804I don't think he's on meth im pretty sure he's just an irrelevant uk friend with little real world experience. He thinks the working class first world is the dregs of the earth and that they impudently live like kings
>>4812812well you do realize the immense danger in delegating resource allocation to a machine, right? the most mathematically efficient solution would probably be 'kill the poor, disabled and stupid'. And not everything is quantifiable. Some information can't even be cardinally arranged. I'm certain that the belief in the nigh-omnipotence of ICT is a sign of naivety, and trust me I am at least informed enough to say this much (being a programming hobbyist myself in time free from actual gainful employment): there is no delegating to algorithms in the near future, and by the time it's a possibility we will likely transcend the meager issue of resource allocation.
>>4812814>uk is irrelevantwhile a fair point that uk-ers don't experience much of the world's toil, I will have you know that I am a 1st generation immigrant from a developing (a.k.a. royally fucked) country, and it is during my life there that I've identified the ills of stupidity and its profileration throughout all classes of society. the dregs of the earth are of all classes and races - they are united only by being stupid.
>uk is irrelevant
>>4812819Sounds convenient but ok. I dont understand how you don't see why you're even making the king comparison in the first place - the gradation between a peasant and king was immense, even though everyone lived a markedly worse life at the time.
>>4812816Lol I don't think you have to program a linear algebra problem solver to include options like "kill the poor" though tbh. We could use algorithms to produce consistent plans, given good enough data about economic processes. The problem that I've run into with a personal project that's tangentially related to economic planning problems is that public data about economic processes is pretty fucking scarce. It's not that we can't capture it, so much as that the people who are capturing that data aren't releasing it to the public because doing so would reveal trade secrets and such shit. Another way capitalist social relations are holding us back, dammit!I don't know about the cardinality/ordinality stuff. Austrian and neoclassical economists both work with a retarded concept of "utility" that doesn't explain anything and is also by their own admission completely made up. Maybe this is naive but why can't we just imagine that people want discrete goods in different amounts and that sometimes these have no relation to each other? How much I want six eggs doesn't have ordinal or cardinal weight to compare to how much I want a bag of grapes, you feel me? Sometimes I just want half a dozen eggs and a bag of grapes. On the off chance I have to choose one or the other, then maybe I decide which I want more between the two, but that's not a static list of preferences and it's more or less totally arbitrary. "Utility" seems to be an esoteric concept. It's certainly not one the average consumer thinks about when they're buying groceries, except on the margins at best (then again what do economists give a shit about more than fuckin marginal cases). The transition from cardinal utility to ordinal doesn't help, because even ordinal utility is framing the problem in autistic terms.
>>4812822well it is convenient, isn't it? unfortunately any official recognition of, as I like to call it, the 'big stupid', would trigger a shockwave of mass protests, rioting, and perhaps the collapse of the world as we know it. as for the matter of inequality, it's just a reflection of the issue - intellect is distributed in an '80-20' ratio, and as such so is wealth. as for the 'convenience' of my upbringing, you have my word as a mentally unstable crackpot theorist that I am at the very least not dishonest.
>>4812824see, you're practically disproving your own point. since 'utility' is literally retarded as a framework (and btw, the Austrians practically invented the notion of value being altogether subjective and are often enemies of utilitarian thought), it's just not possible to estimate the true value of goods - which IS a must to calculate opportunity costs for the provision of good X vs. Y
>>4812825Bruh, no. If you can inheret your wealth there's absolutely no way wealth necessarily correlates with intellligence. If anything the intellligent of the world make their riches by leeching off of stupid rich people, whether symbiotically or not
>>4812830oh please, the majority of inherited wealth is very quickly dashed against the stones in the wrong (see: dumb) hands. inheritance is something I'm ultimately willing to negotiate on, especially if abolishing it means the violent swathes of morons can be briefly appeasedAnyhow, I will promptly be leaving the thread and pretending that everyone in it has died horribly so that I can sleep peacefully. I will be back however, to unleash even more vitriol on altogether innocent people because I'm bored and unsympathetic
>>4812828i'm saying we don't need "true values" to begin with though. marx was actually one of the first to cast doubt on the whole concept of "value" altogether, noting the same thing that mises notes in his work on economic calculation that the price system eliminates the distinction between various types of labor. the only difference is, marx doesn't believe that monetary calculation is "rational", while mises reduces "rationality" to the cognitive mappings of the petit-bourgeois shop keeper and ignores the way capitalism reduces different types of labor to abstract social labor.the austrians also have no way to explain anything through their concept of subjective value. it frees them from the burden of having to explain anything at all. while marx can be understood in more modern terms as suggesting that values are a generative effect of free competition and exchange, there's no way at all to go from subjective evaluations in the austrian sense to a price system. they have to assume a price system exists to begin with, the very thing they're purporting to explain, making a circular argument. marx, at least, puts capitalism in its historical context to explain the emergence of capitalist exchange relations. mises, like the other vulgar economists, assumes capitalism is mankind's natural state.
>>4812835did marx cast doubt on value by creating the labour theory of value? nicewe do need true value for a command economy though. how does our algorithm know which good is more crucial? obviously it can't provide EVERYTHING. can we measure happiness resulting from goods? nah, not anytime soon. and if we suppose that the computer's axiom is to protect human life above all, we'll just end up mutilated and transfigured into perfectly healthy abominations beyond the most bizzare of fantasies
>>4812833> the majority of inherited wealth is very quickly dashed against the stones in the wrong (see: dumb) handsthat's the point though, if rich investers make bad decisions their investments fail outright, and if they make intelligent investments they're still paying people to do something they themselves aren't smart enough to do.
> the majority of inherited wealth is very quickly dashed against the stones in the wrong (see: dumb) hands
>>4812836Marx didn't "create" the labor theory of value, his "law of value" was based on the observation that capitalist social relations generate a price system, with goods (in a perfectly competitive economy) being priced by the socially necessary labor time required to produce them (something only observable after the fact, so there can be no "labor theory of value" in the Mutualist or Bakuninist sense where we attribute goods a certain labor value which they're required by legal fiat to be exchanged for). Marx and Engels saw competition as what actually makes the law of value real. They didn't identify a commodity as having an inherent, essential, value, based on the amount of labor time embodied in it in particular. What matters is how much people are willing to pay for it, which is the minimal amount, and how much capitalists can get away with charging for it assuming competitive conditions. It's something that's actually very apt to be captured in the emerging science of agent-based computational modeling.I think most people's desires (for example, I want x bags of grapes, y sacks of rice, z green bell peppers per week) can be made explicit to our imaginary planning algorithm, and that the planning algorithm can make the decision on what's possible on the basis of programmed ecological constraints (don't exceed k tons of CO2 emissions, minimize fossil fuel usage, etc.) Would this always produce an optimal plan that satisfies everyone? Probably not. But neither does the current system, which only takes into account the demand of people who have money to spend. Some people, in a planned economy, might want twelve bags of grapes, but only receive three. But the basic problem of survival is solvable, and humanity can produce a material surplus to provide material basis for other projects on a collaborative, associative, and non-commercial basis.
>>4812837take a look at comparative vs absolute advantage, if you will. you see, they aren't too dumb to do the menial work, it's just that those doing menial work don't have the capacity to manage a major assembly of people. they could be excellent workers and dreadfully clever, but managers are just altogether a different kind of person that our society has somehow grown to value quite a bit more. Marx, in Das Kapital, constructed the fallacious notion that profit is immaterial and has no source. However, profit is very much derived - it is the value of enterpreneurship (that is, investing, decision-making and managing) imposed on the business by its surrounding economy.
>>4812838well, I respect your ability to articulate your point so well, without being inflammatory, and the logical integrity of it, but I ultimately disagree on the point that we can sooner quantify desires than become transhuman and stop giving a fuck. another issue is of course implementation - what if people disagree with the computer? will they be punished? what if most people, by virtue of idiocy, utterly resist the computer's propositions? what if it comes to killing others? I wouldn't bear to kill anyone, whatever the gain from it may be. it might be cringeworthy, brief and ultimately dumb but human life is the one thing we have that's worth protecting
>>4812841I don't think you actually read Capital because in volume one the source of profit is a major point of discussion and he doesn't conclude it's just "immaterial". It's very material, in fact.
>>4812845 Shame because the tag match was somehow below him especially coming from DG and in the US.
>>4812845okay, I phrased it poorly. he doesn't reach that conclusion, he just reaches one that is ultimately different to what I'd consider appropriate. this is trivial, unless you're fixated on somehow deifying an economist who probably can't appreciate, being dead and all
>>4812844yeah no problem and excuse if my reply before this one is a lil snarky lol. i take marx super cereal. obviously we don't have a planned economy algorithm that we can implement at this very moment, but i think it will be a matter of building it from the bottom to the top. the aforementioned problem i was working on is actually an app for community gardens to share resources (tools, volunteers, etc.) and coordinate common plans. the problem is that a lot of planting data isn't publicly available. that's something that will require a lot of effort to obtain accurate knowledge for. i think the knowledge problem is a real one but not an insurmountable one, at least in that context.
>>4812847so you're so desperate to propagate your ideology that you resort to semi-ironically larping. seems like a machine would sure as fuck like to kill you, first and foremost, considering 'the rich' can at least be productively exploited while couch theorists (like me and you, in some ways I assume) get the noose
>>4812847ayyy, it's hitchbot!
>>4812850>considering 'the rich' can at least be productively exploited Socioeconomic technobabble you can. Theorise you cannot. You're a bit of a one trick pony aren't you Thomas?
>considering 'the rich' can at least be productively exploited
>>4812850Werent you gonna leave dog we were about to make fun of you
>>4812856yeah, I had like six memes lined up
>>4812855utterly hollow argument. this isn't babble, it's appropriate vocabulary. do I need to call computers 'county-thingies' to sate your yearning for primitive expression? I don't see the fault in my reasoning. the currently wealthy would likely fill managerial, middleman-type micromanagement tasks for the machine as opposed to theorists, who can only talk loudly and perhaps do some manual labour (that a machine won't resort to, it'd just automate everything asap)
>>4812858lmao why the FUCK would a machine need middle managers
>>4812856>>4812857while I realise this is ironic, it's quite alarming that there could be people out there quite sincerely reacting to my posts in such a manner, as well as in earnest calling their fellow man a 'dog', which is so disturbing that I just can't seem to sleep.
>>4812860because it's not omnipotent and can only do so many observational tasks at once, and needs to prioritize them, delegating the most elementary of processes where rationale is necessary (those in which betrayal is impossible) to 'wetware' anyhow the machine would likely have no interest in preserving any of us. to a machine we hold zero value, machines don't experience the false sense of camaraderie or mutual trouble that we do towards our 'fellow' 'men'
>>4812858You are literally the dunning-kruger effect on stilts. You willfully misinterpret other people's posts to shoehorn your weird verbose fascination with IQ and the lower class. There's nothing hallow about my argument, you cannot theorise yourself out a wet paper bag.
>>4812863>where rationale is necessaryIwhat the fuck is the supercomputer for then?
>where rationale is necessary
>>4812865do clear up the following: how am I displaying the dunning-kruger effect if the misinterpretation is wilful as opposed to being out of stupidity? could it be that you are actually saying this because you're regurtiating an irrelevant talking point?
>>4812868okay, real straight now, ASSUMING the computer has any use for us, it has more use for the rich, ASSUMING they earned their wealth through enterprise and executive functioning. that's a poor assumption, as I earlier point out.
>>4812871Then what's yoiur point dog
>>4812874well that bit is kinda pointless out of context, but the overarching theme is that a 'machine' would be no more friendly to couch communists as to the rich (as to everyone really)
>>4812869ahaBecause it suits you to shift the topic to a complete tangent - that tangent is something easy, something you're comfortable with - which seems to be ribbing on minorities in the 3rd world or low IQ working class or some other low hanging fruit. ..That's kind of what shoehorning is? That's why I called you a one trick pony earlier? Are you joining the dots now? You seem to only be able to talk about one topic, like some deranged aristocrat with a stick up his arse.Nice effort on the crab though, i'll give you that. Also ad hominem is fun and therapeutic, the latter is something you definitely need to try.
>>4812878my personal feelings are that you're the demagogue here while I'm just trying to deflect specific criticisms; I quite dislike how you make these truly baseless accusations - I am not ribbing on the working class, minorities or the third world. you're assuming that because you have preconceived notions of what I'm like but ultimately fail to read that I clearly believe that stupidity infiltrates all layers of society everywhere. I treat all people equally when it comes to this question - equally poorly, as they're statistically likely to be dumb cunts. why aren't you facing the question I pose? aren't you retreating into a comfort zone by not even acknowledging the overarching themes of my posts - that most people can not so much as match a bunch of shapes?
>>48128804>Truly baseless accusations>african americans are of course quite stupid, thanks to their systematic oppression and stupefaction by empires of days now bygone, but as I said, 100IQ (average white euro, muricans are a... different animal) is stil abysmally low.I also like that you didn't deflect working class or low IQ. In fact it appears you're doubling down? Like yeah stupidity infiltrates all layers of society everywhere - blanket throwaway statement. Treating people you perceive to be of low intellect poorly does not make you a paragon of society you absolute sham of a person, especially when you come out with this anti-science hyperbole >>4812738why aren't you facing the question I pose?By god, the ever shifting question.
>Truly baseless accusations>african americans are of course quite stupid, thanks to their systematic oppression and stupefaction by empires of days now bygone, but as I said, 100IQ (average white euro, muricans are a... different animal) is stil abysmally low.
>>4812890Gross formatting. Y'all get the picture. NB
>>4812880>I clearly believe that stupidity infiltrates all layers of society everywhere.bitch you were just saying intelligence correlates with wealth, stop lying. as you said...>>4812825 >intellect is distributed in an '80-20' ratio, and as such so is wealth convince me you weren't vigorously tugging at your bootstraps
>I clearly believe that stupidity infiltrates all layers of society everywhere.
>intellect is distributed in an '80-20' ratio, and as such so is wealth
>>4812896only in a society where the rule of law is upheld, which are very few if any. in most countries, it still vaguely correlates but there are plenty crooks who haven't intellect so much as poor morals. smart poor people I do not believe in however. if you're smart, you can figure out some source of income, anything from scraping pennies together and making extremely risky investments to sex work. as such, I do admit that I think less of the poor in general because they're less likely to be clever. but I nevertheless am just as careful in judging wealthy people on a case by case basis - I judge all people individually when it comes to actually making any decisions. trash talking poorfags is more like a hobby if you will.this is 'meth guy' posting from mobile btw, I'm in bed already
>>4812898>i think less of the poor in generaldog, you're poor. what do the poorest people have in comparison to you? 750, 1000, maybe 10,000 times less than you? even if you're a damn millionaire, the 100th richest man in the world has 25,000 times more money than you. you're broke, son.
>i think less of the poor in general
toasting in an autistic bread
>>4812905yeah but if he lives in the western world, he is richer than like 95% of the world.I would argue that he is indeed rich. Wealth of large amounts can't be contained in single individuals. They may have the greatest access to the wealth but it exists in assets and intangible values.
>>4812913That's not a good thing wtf? If you're a slave to the super rich in their current headquarters you're better off than the other nineteen twentieths of the world, do you feel better yet?
>>4812898lmao so you trash talk poorer people to make yourself feel better about being a brain dead middle class herbertfucking herberts gonna herbert eh?
So I know most people on here like to fellate the governemnt, but how do you fellas view government monopolies?And by that I mean privately owned corporations that have a government enforced control on a market?
>>4812956you mean like coca cola and raw coca leaves?
>>4812959watI have no idea what you're talking about.I'm talking about like power, phone, or airline corporations that have a control on the market because the government puts regulations in place that prevent competition from entering the market.
>>4812962coca cola has had an exclusive deal with the united states government since like 1914 where they currently are and have been the only company allowed to import raw coca leaves so long as they chemically remove the cocaine and "destroy" itlook it up g
>>4812966That's pretty interesting actually. Thanks man I'm going to read into that.
>>4812962How are they functionally different than natural monopolies that are established without regulatory capture?Both should be regulated to enable competition, failing that profits over a couple percent ought to be taxed at 100% to incentivize reinvestment, failing that the company ought to be nationalized so at least its leadership doesn't have a conflict of interest with the people.
>>4812975So how are we going to build all those competing power lines and telephone poles?
>>4813247Except there is no competition in telecom companies. They might as well just be one gelatinous blob that slightly shifts its form every now and then.
>>4813249Nah bro you don't get it, it's good for America. $90 a month for internet access is totally normal and reasonable. Net neutrality is a danger to your freedoms.
>>4813252The funny part is that this dude thinks that nationalizing telephone companies would improve the situation. They already essentially regulate themselves. They've got the FCC in their pocket and other regulatory bodies. What good would making those companies owned by the state do, when the state has already made it very explicit that they don't give a shit about properly regulating them and breaking up monopolies?
>>4813261Maybe the entire fucking probably is that you DON'T actually regulate them, have you ever thought of that?
>>4813264We should regulate phone companies like we regulate babies. With shotguns
I did not expect this thread to blow up like this. I'm not going to read through it, but remember:Eat meat 5 days outa 7 of the week. That also means eat meat all days but reduce the amount per day. The US particularly holy fuck, your general portion is off the chart, are you ok over there?
>>4813261>They've got the FCC in their pocket and other regulatory bodies>What good would it do to take their pockets away?
>They've got the FCC in their pocket and other regulatory bodies>What good would it do to take their pockets away?
>>4813264The problem is a lot more complex than that.>Hurr we need more regulationsIt's not regulate vs deregulate. There are tons and tons and tons of regulations on the telecom industry. But it gives the appearance that it's not regulated because they're writing their own regulations. They have plenty of regulations that stifle competition and plenty of regulations that are strictly anti consumer. Can you imagine that? I bet that's blowing your mind. The thought of adding a regulation and it not helping the consumer or hindering the business is pretty crazy right?It's a deep systemic problem that will never be solved by more regulation until we can completely take money and lobbying out of politics altogether. So essentially, begging big brother for more regulation is like saying "hey, write some more rules that help you rape me, AT&T.">>4813275Was this supposed to make sense, or have any basis in reality? Do you actually think that as soon as something becomes a government entity, that money is no longer THE driving factor. Jeez, I'd love to live in that deluded fantasy land. Shit, if anything it would become more corrupt as politicians start digging in and using it as their own little piggy bank and as a huge bucket of rewards for campaign contributors and politician cronies.
>Hurr we need more regulations
>>4813364Nice strawman, doofus. You didn't even attempt to grasp the point I was making, and continue on with the regulation vs deregulation diatribe. I never even said to deregulate. I'm saying we need to address systemic issues before yelling for them to write more rules for themselves. Lrn2read.
itt stoned teenagers philosophizing and politicizingGET A JOB MORANS
>>4813368Well then that's true. Just don't make it sound like it's the government's fault for shit companies do. I was amazed to see all these fucking retards cheering on the destruction of Net Neutrality. I can't tell if they actively want a shittier world or are just too fucking stupid to understand that's what they're doing.
>>4813261Bringing telecoms under public control would make them at least in theory answerable to the general public. There would be problems in the US context as Republicans would immediately sabotage any government agency responsible for providing internet infrastructure, but it's doable.
>>4813480In theory, the FCC answers to the general public. In practice, it would just be yet an other powerful unelected body with a massive piggy bank. Maybe if we elected some kind of citizen council that isn't allowed to have any ties to any telecom, and isn't allowed to receive any money from telecom or lobbyists, I guess it is doable. I don't see it going that way though. Any time a new branch is created, it's by appointment because the branch creating the new wing of the government creates new power opportunities and the constant power struggle means every single thing is utilized to tip power left or right.The right would definitely fuck over the innernette. The left isn't about privatizing infrastructure unless it's the water supply. See: Monterey Amendments. It's pretty mind blowing that a state viewed as one of the most liberal in the union (california) privatized their water supply, after the dam and aqueducts were paid for mostly by taxpayers. It just goes to show how much more the greedy political climate dictates the way regulation goes than intent or principles.
>>4813516> a state viewed as one of the most liberal in the union (california) privatized their water supplyThat's exactly what liberalism is about. "Liberal" does not mean "socialist", my Yank mate, it's actually quite the opposite.
> a state viewed as one of the most liberal in the union (california) privatized their water supply
>>4813516You could organize it as a nationwide consumer cooperative, and perhaps give it subsidies for the expansion of fiber optic networks.
no go somewhere else... ↵
>This is literally one of the saddest fucking things I have ever heard in my entire goddamn life.
420chan → @420chan
420chan Bans → @420bans
Netjester → @NetjesterAI