Mniot

joined 9 months ago
[–] Mniot@programming.dev 125 points 3 months ago (3 children)

"Why would anyone in Europe care?"

I think the point of it would be to signal to Trump that Europe is his vassal. Trump says it's sad that this guy is dead, therefore Europe is sad. Doesn't really matter who it is or what's up. You're just following the pledge of fealty.

So, I think it's good that the EU decided they're sovereign for now. This sort of thing is always an ongoing project.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

She's bad for supporting him in the first place. But once you're in the concentration camp I feel like it's tougher to expect people to have a spine. Kinda like in 1984. Maybe if she begs Trump to kill her kids, she'll be spared.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

Come on. Obama's continuation of presidential power-creep is not what enables Trump. Trump getting elected, taking over the Supreme Court, getting elected again, having all the billionaires lick his ass, etc is what enables him.

If you wanna lay it on Obama, blame him for not taking the right wing seriously enough and going after them at the local level where they had been building strength for the past 50+ years. Or for not betraying all his moderate-conservative supporters to implement some seriously progressive policy.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 10 points 3 months ago

This, but in a hopeful voice instead of sarcastic 🙂

(Being surrounded by people who think more progressively will tend to shift people’s views)

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

OK, cool. That definitely helps things.

I think where we're disagreeing is that I think in a capitalist society the promise of money will inevitably corrupt the government (because it's made of people). Maybe it can be avoided if the government performs additional regulatory action to stop anyone from getting too wealthy, but that sounds like beyond the limits that you want to set for government.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Without force

Whoah, whoah. Why'd you rule that out?

Your business plan: quality goods at reasonable prices. My business plan: hire some goons to kill you and take your stuff.

Historically, this has a lot of precedence.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

In an unfettered marketplace, what stops a dominant player from introducing fetters?

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (7 children)

When I read your message, I get the impression that you think of "The Government" as this independent actor. I see it as a system that is primarily controlled by wealthy people. Either directly or through their funding advertisements (including astroturfing/bot-farms) to promote what they want.

So the larger companies do get government assistance... because they are the government. And this isn't some kind of weird coincidence. It's fundamental to capitalism's operation. You can't have a system that's based on capital and then have it be unbiased towards entities who have vastly more capital!

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 3 points 4 months ago

Their "real" job was some standard cog-in-the-machine engineering work, which is why they got laid off. Just another number.

Most open-source work happens outside of corporate planning and so it's invisible to the company. When the reality is, it would absolutely be worth it to Intel to pay a 40/w salary just to maintain this little bit of code. The value is there, but the humans running the company would never be able to get over the hurdle of "he's not working very hard so he doesn't deserve the money."

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago (9 children)

socialized capitalism

I think I understand your complaint, but I'd say "free market" rather than "capitalism". But regardless of what we call it, it doesn't actually exist unless you have a more powerful external system regulating it.

Start with a truly free-market capitalist system. One company manages to temporarily pull ahead (through luck and skill). The rational thing for the company to do isn't "make better products" (that's hard) but "destroy competing companies" (much easier). And the end-product would be that the company becomes a government so it can force consumers to pay.

So I'd argue that socialized capitalism (which I'm picturing as a socialist system that permits certain specific free markets and handles the fallout of business failures) is what you actually want.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 163 points 4 months ago (17 children)

I think the US will be fine as long as we don't repeatedly elect some kind of cabal of pedophile authoritarians.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 8 points 4 months ago

If you were part of the billionaire class, you'd be paying less. Sucker.

view more: ‹ prev next ›