Numberone @ Numberone @startrek.website

Posts

0

Comments

206

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, a phone company is never never never going to alienate customers like that. And the power dynamics in that situation are quite different. If you're looking to suss out the limits of what I think about this than you've done it. I 100% agree people shouldn't come to physical harm. Again, that's quite a different situation than the one described in the article though.

100% agreed

Absolutely, because that makes my life more difficult, as a restaurant owner. I don't feel like that says anything about it tactically or morally though.

Yes I do think that. Protest tactics change but they seem to gravitate toward noncompliance and, yes, disruption. I honestly can't think of a successful protest that was all roses and hugs. Could be missing something.

Isn't the point of protest to not let people forget about things? How easy would it be in the west to not notice, the media certainly isn't keeping up on it. Every time I see one of these I think, that's a braver person than me, and thank fucking god for the Streisand effect. No downvote, but strong disagree.

Stop it, stop it. I already like the guy. Geez. But really, great joke.

Well Lucas saw it as an allagory for resistance against empire so there may be something in there to muddy up simple conservatism. Nothing is simple.

Waste heat reclamation for water heating purposes seems like a no brainer. For small buildings as well as large ones, but no one talks about it.

Good eye!

Head cannon is that 1/3 of voyager is taken up by a massive shuttle manufactory. It's never discussed but it must be there...Otherwise, none of this shit makes any sense.😬

Yeah, I read the list and fair enough. I mean to go further I'd have to argue each thing and say if I agree that it helps the economy directly or not, who the fuck cares what I think. The Biden admin has been good on anti trust, those are filtering through the courts now right, so no concrete effect yet right? Biden is good on labor too, being like the first president to visit a picket line. That may have legitimately helped the broader economy if that factored into their decision to concede to the UAW and those wage increases filtered out to non Union shops in the south. Almost invariably when people cite "Bidenomics" they mention infrastructure and green spending, which I don't think nearly accounts for what's been happening in terms of unemployment. I wanted concrete examples, you gave me a bunch. That's something to think about, and I appreciate it.

Agreed, presidents can apply pressure but the Fed is technically independent. That probably wasn't fair of me to link Biden to the Fed, sorry. Dems are quick to attribute this gain to the Biden administration. I've heard broad statements about how Biden is good for the economy, but they don't really go into specifics. I'm curious what they're specifically saying he's done to boost the economy to the point that it invalidates Fed interest/employment/inflation models.

What specifically is he doing that is creating jobs? As of February new jobs are being driven by healthcare jobs. There are several other types of work before you get to construction, which could plausably be linked to infrastructure spending. And again, that's held to against the interest rate hikes that are designed to lower inflation by increasing unemployment, or the more appropriate euphomism of softening the labor market.

Isn't low unemployment a "despite the Biden administration" thing? Wasn't that the whole point of the interest rate hikes to "cool off" the economy (I.E. increase unemployment). Am I missing something?

Best and brightest..

Nothing creepy about that hug...these old fucks can't help themselves can they.

OP is a troll for saying go vegan on an animal cruelty thread huh?...ok...

I had a morning pee, FOR THE GLORY OF THE KLINGON EMPIRE!

Ruin!

Can you elaborate on this? I've always thought that housing is an absolutely terrible "store of value". Given the fact that appreciation at a population level, by definition means housing will be less affordable for the next generation. How is value for one generation balanced against subsequent ones. Also, it's an incredibly inefficient way to build a nest egg or whatever. If you pay a mortgage like most people do, over 15-30 yrs, you're paying something on the level of 150%-200% of its value over time. It seems to me a more rational way to build value is to keep housing costs low, allowing people to invest that difference (mortgage interest) into either investments or savings, rather than paying it to a bank.

I get that the US doesn't really have a culture of saving, but I feel like this is rationalized by the "my house will be more valuable when I retire" crowd. It's so easy to save now, with efficient investment products broadly available to individuals. Maybe it's time to let the house as the bulk of your wealth go, and make housing affordable again.