For the record, I’m sure there was no shortage of bullying of the unvaccinated. I wouldn’t even be surprised to hear there was violence against the unvaccinated that the mainstream media didn’t and wouldn’t report. That this trend was so prevalent in society that Democrat-identifying people wanted to codify persecution of the unvaccinated into law according to the Rasmussen survey, is why I will never vote for another Democrat ever again.
1 Like
I think that the record of this Democratic administration is sufficient reason to want to vote against rather than for them this election cycle. Three things I can name off the top of my head are 1) the attempt to force Covid vaccination on everybody, 2) throwing the border wide open to a migration-invasion, and 3) their active campaign against free speech on social media. And I’m sure more things could be listed that I am forgetting just now.
The main reason I advise against worrying about anything they’re promising this time, is that pretty much all of the things they promised last election cycle that came out of that Bernie Sanders-led “Unity Commission” (for pity’s sake, do I ever wish there was a way I could change my posting-icon) were promptly tossed into the trash after the inaugural ball.
3 Likes
The recent videos of Kamala giving speeches to obviously fake AI generated audiences suggest that she might be smarter than people give her credit for. She interacted with the fake applause and audience very convincingly.
1 Like
I like your distinction between rich and wealth. But we need more understanding of what wealth is and where it comes from, if it is going to be central to economic discussions, and especially since the term is all imaginary make believe anyways, a cover for people who don’t really understand where prosperity comes from.
The best definition for wealth (at least “physical” wealth) that I can come up with is that it is the myriad complex carbon molecules created by plants. This takes the form of all the hydrocarbons underground, and all the carbohydrates, fats, and proteins (though proteins aren’t C molecules), plus all the various enzymes antioxidants etc. in food.
When you analyze everything we value physically, pretty much all of it can be traced back to these chemicals. Even the animals we eat originally came from these substances.
We use these substances for food, energy, housing, clothing, heat, making anything synthetic, transportation. Even things like metals could not be produced without energy derived from them. And the whole purpose of metals ultimately is to facilitate those other things. We do get some energy from nuclear but it is pretty minor. And solar panels and turbines had to be manufactured out of plants.
And you could say modern medicine is a form of wealth too but it relies on yet more complex carbon molecules with all the pills. And I think we here on this site understand that in large part, modern medicine has been a net negative for western society.
So in my definition, wealth is the plant-produced substances I describe above, plus the other side to this is the knowledge and capital needed to maximize our use of them to satisfy our needs and wants.
Hundreds of years ago we were rich with these substances but somewhat limited in the second part, the ability to use them. Now it’s the opposite, scientific discovery has discovered an amazing ability to manufacture and create things with them, but we are running low on feedstock, so this ability isn’t doing us much good. Or at least, the ability to do things with them isn’t increasing every year like it used to.
So, basically, I do not agree that labour creates wealth. Not at all. All labour does is participate in the processes that harvest and transform the complex carbon molecules, and labour’s role in this is diminishing by the year as computers take over.
Automation technology has merely reduced the number of labour hours needed to do this. Street intersections used to be operated by people. Traffic lights took away all those jobs. UPC codes reduced the number of cashiers in the supermarket. In my job, I have confirmed that it now takes 5x fewer person hours to design an industrial facility than 40 years ago due to computer modelling and software. You can go through any sector of the economy and everywhere you look, you will see that automation has thrown massive amounts of people out of work. Those workers have shifted into “unproductive” sectors like government, military, finance, consumerism, growth (building never ending new subdivisions simply for the sake of satisfying the finance sector), and sick care – sectors which do not improve our ability to increase our wealth as I defined it above.
Has this automation created wealth? Not in my opinion. It has made the elites at the top very “rich”, where all the money has flowed, but overall “wealth” in the economy has not imcreased. For sure, computers allow us to drill for oil in ways totally unheard of a century ago, but that is only a benefit because we have run out of conventional oil wells. We aren’t getting appreciably better or more oil as a result of these fancy drilling techniques.
OK sure, you could argue that our amazing ability to share information and videos on our devices is a form of wealth as well, but has it really improved the overall quality of our lives? Without the other basics I describe above, are tik tok videos really that important? It seems like all they do is distract us from what is important. But I do agree that the ability to have forums like this is great and would not be possible 50 years ago.
Let’s see how much wealth people believe computers have brought us when CBDC’s are brought in with complete surveillance and control of the whole world, and our personal devices in our pockets instead become weapons of control.
It isn’t possible to correctly understand economics unless one analyzes it through the lens of how these complex carbon molecules were / are produced, how they fit into global chemical cycling, how energy flows through and dissipates, and how human labour and technology transform these substances.
Hi Normal Guy:
I worry about this a lot because it seems like the logical Plan B. Plan A being Trump’s assassination. Feels like they are setting us all up to lose no matter who is “elected.”
1 Like
I feel your pain. I ran as a Bernie delegate. Have eaten a fair share of humble pie about that!
@mark_bc I can tell you put a lot of thought into this.
However, I am not certain this is likely to be a useful definition for conversations with other people due to being so drastically different. In addition, it doesn’t seem apparent to me how useful the specificity of solar power manifested as plant growth as being the one definition of wealth is to explain the world around us.
Part of why definitions matter is that they explain a truth. Somehow, I don’t think co-opting wealth for this purpose serves that end result.
If you’d like to create a new thread and expound upon your ideas, if nothing else, it should make for an interesting conversation.
Well, I’m feeling less pain now, as the system will at least let me use a letter for my icon, even if it doesn’t give me an option for downloading a new picture from my computer.
1 Like
Be careful! A thousand pounds of butter in your possession is a warning sign of being Swedish.
1 Like
retailers depend on inventory turnover; 1.6% can be occasionally appropriate profitability with enough inventory turns
I think I’m getting this comment on the right post… I’m aiming for the discussion about how “stupid” Kamala Harris is.
Did anyone else catch the episode of Michael Malice’s podcast with Bret Weinstein as the guest? They discuss the Harris-Walz ticket (among several other interesting topics). Neither of them seem to think Harris is stupid (although Bret acknowledges she’s a very bad public speaker). They think she’s ruthless, and has/will done/do whatever it takes to gain and keep power.
Anyway, it’s a very interesting podcast.
1 Like