Granted. You are on the moon (with empty bladder and poop shute)
Bleach7297
joined 1 year ago
Ah yes. How could I forget? Perhaps with a significant head injury. 🥸
My parents' is called Hair Brain (they have pets)
Agreed. We'll be charging them too.
Does the Trump country club know any other rhetorical tricks? Or just projection?
True. Things have gotten worse, though. I remember being fairly shocked by the first Harper campaign, the depths they went to amplify anger towards the Liberal party. To be fair, the Liberals had it coming and needed to be replaced, but they needed to be replaced by the Tories, not the Reform party (which is what the Conservative party was and is)
Maybe they'll put up a nice memorial in Tel Aviv like the Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas in Berlin.
Ubuntu, after the third consecutive release that broke previously working hardware. That was a while ago and I haven't tried it recently, but given snap I'm not really inclined to.
I'm sorry I can only give you the one upvote. I find myself in the same situation.
Nobody is 'poised' to do anything. The next election doesn't need to happen until the back end of 2025. Thats more than enough time for the Liberals to do what they do best and convince everyone that, bad as they are, they're the only safe choice.
Most Ontarians didn't bother voting in the last provincial election. Evidently most of them don't actually care who runs their province or what the province's role is.
They could've elected Lesley Knope from Parks and Rec, or they could've elected an obscure Jim Henson Muppet, but instead they elected Peter Griffin. None were great choices but only one was an actual moron and that's who they picked.
Maybe some day the Liberals or NDP will field someone with enough personality to get Ontario to care enough to vote.
Anyway, your post sent me off on a tangent, but if you couldn't guess, I'm in complete agreement.
We would stop short of ending capitalism because it is extremely entrenched and it is easier to fix it than replace it. Also because making a massive change like 'ending capitalism' (however that looks) opens society up to exploitation by external parties applying a kind of "shock doctrine" to ensure that whatever replaces it is to their benefit.
The primary merit of capitalism is that it theoretically does not require central planning but self-organizes into a functional system.
However, fundamentalists like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan believe (or at least espoused the idea) that, without central planning, these systems self-organize into some kind of optimal state. That's the Ayn Randian wet dream, but we can clearly see that it is far from the truth, at least from the standpoint of societal and environmental well-being. (E. Ron Muskard and Jeff Bozo might disagree.)
One of the things communism and laissez-faire capitalism have in common is that neither properly account for human greed.
Adam Smith believed that people know what they need better than any central planner, and I agree with that. The role of the central planner is to ensure that excessive greed, short sighted and anticompetitive behaviour does not hinder the self-organizing aspects of capitalism. However the various central planners (read: governments) in any globalist, neoliberal country, pay lip service to this role, at best. Because of that reform will be difficult to achieve since government considers corporations to be constituents and are thus beholden to them.
I don't know if it's possible to 'end inequality' but we do need to set limits on how unequal things can get. Nobody should be so poor that they are miserable and nobody should be so wealthy that they can leverage their wealth to generate more wealth without providing a sustainable, long-term net benefit to society. A key point is that the market would no longer decide what is a benefit to society, since it clearly isn't equipped to do that. Another key point is that unnecessary power hierarchies do more harm than good and governments shouldn't be shy about dismantling them, including within their own structures.
I think an anarcho-syndicalist society with minimal power structures to maintain rule of order would be just fine, but I don't see a clear path to get there without a major change of public perception. Sadly time is not on our side.
Anyway, those are my somewhat disjointed thoughts on the subject. You may not agree on all points but I think we can agree that the economic theories that have shaped our society will be our downfall if left unchallenged.