camelCaseGuy @ camelCaseGuy @lemmy.world

Posts

7

Comments

70

Joined

2 yr. ago

It could work surprisingly well at some extent. I mean, Spaniards are hard labouring people and they put hours to work. But they also like to live the life (you know, paella, siesta and stuff). So the first couple of times it may come to pass, but things may hit the fan really quickly.

Also, cheap labour force and laws very favourable for the employer.

You know, most countries that have strike laws forbid this. In Spain, for instance, if the workers are on a strike, the company is forbidden to replace those positions in a strike. Neither with temporary, nor people from other places. And the company cannot fire them. Basically it's a shackle, either you solve your strike or you are out of business.

I know my sources are kinda lame, but I trust them. First, is this video from Kurzgesast that comments on if, how and why nuclear energy is a good strategy for long term improvement on greenhouse emissions and energy sourcing. Second, there's this other video from nuclear physicist Elina Charatsidou.

Again, not papers, but words from reputable people that I imagine have read enough. I know, as hominen fallacy and all that. But there's a point where I don't have the time to read papers about EVERY interesting topic.

And even then, although there's a finite amount of Uranium on Earth, the amount there is could last us thousands of years. Enough for us to get a replacement, like fusion, working.

Yes, by Argentinian standards. That is not much, taking into account the left bias that Argentinian politics have at the moment. By most standards, Juntos por el Cambio are a social-democrat solution. That is pretty much left in most countries.

Yes dad! I'm a sissy removed, and I like to watch man like me getting steamrolled by big black hunks!

I came to ask you if you wanted a slice of pizza... but okay.

See? That's where I get confused and I end up with the "that can't happen" attitude in my head.

If you abolish private property, then who has that property? Someone will always have some of that, at least. Let's imagine that it's seized, by whom? How? And why wouldn't that be thievery in the eyes of those who don't want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don't it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a "haver" against all of those "havenotters" that gave their property for nothing but good will.

And then there's the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of "property"? And then it's the issue of how do you measure that "property"? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It's not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.

Finally, who does that? We? And who is "we"? Who organises "we"? How is "we" not anarchist? And if it's anarchist, how do we ensure it's just?

"Planned by the libs", as if the "libs" were a single entity that have a homogeneous plan. Let's stop giving entity to stuff that never existed and realise that there is a structural problem that occurred because of bad management of our economy and policies. Because we had mediocre actors and in some cases actors with bad faith.

I don't hate the human race. But I cannot stop pointing to our flaws. Not understanding our flaws, will lead to keep having them and the problems they carry.

On the other hand, what you are saying will be valid in any system. How do you propose to have a completely egalitarian society? It's nearly impossible, there will always be people wanting more than they have and won't care about the consequences of it.

Don't blame capitalism for something that's at the core of any political system: Greed destroys it. Greed and humans are intertwined. It's not capitalism's fault. The same happened across history even when and where capitalism didn't exist: the Egyptian empire, the Roman Empire, the Soviet block and even in China now. Greedy people that can be bought will exist everywhere. The wish for power is not inherent of capitalism, is inherent of human nature. Failing to see that will lead to the same issue over and over again, in democratic or autocratic regimes.

Yes, of course we do. We just need politicians willing to do that. I thinks that's the most difficult part.

Yes and no. Capitalism without regulations may bring this kind of issues. But capitalism with regulations shouldn't. The issue is that the required regulations are not being applied or do not exist.

We should not blame or put the weight of the issue in capitalism, when we clearly know we don't live in a perfect capitalistic world, and very few markets are like that. The issue is with politicians.

No, that's an effect of collusion and cartelization of the economy. It's because you have very few actors supplying the product and the barriers of creating a similar product are too high, so new competitors cannot access the market. Then the current suppliers can sit on the product and wait for it to be at the right price, as long as it doesn't go to waste.

As you can see, all of this screens about real estate:

• Cartelization/collusion: The aren't that many companies that have properties on sale
• High cost to enter: Building is pricey, and it depends on the location of the property more than anything. So a building in one neighborhood is not a direct replacement of a building in another neighborhood.
• Real estate does not go to waste. Unless bad luck or poor choices, your building should work fine for a couple of generations. And worst case scenario, the land already has a price.

This is the time when governments should intervene and come up with a proposal to solve the cartelization.

Have a big population, season it abundantly with poverty and low social mobility, add a dash of ignorance and low education, et voilà! A magic cauldron where this and other horrific shit happen on a daily basis (if not hourly).

What about the respect given to an individual because of its status in society? There are certain people that have a base level of respect because of their seniority, job or role during a period of time.

Those people may or may not show the same amount of respect towards others as is shown to them in general. And I dare say, there will be people willing to defend them even if they are not up to expectations, just because they have that seniority/job/role.

Take for instance:

• Some politicians
• Some celebrities
• Some senior members of an organisation, like CEOs, CTOs, senior managers, etc.

It doesn't make sense because it's some conspiracy theory level bullshit. It would imply that big CEOs or board members either:

• Possess a big percentage of the current real estate properties (and I mean, huge, like 50%)
• Big part of their assets are in real estate (again, more than 30%)

And, that of course, they are all colluding. Meaning, there is a kind of Illuminati kind of society of all the CEOs that get together with pie charts and excels to see how to maximize their profits.

It's a delusion that people with a low grasp of reality are using to cope with the fact that:

• Economy is shit
• There are people that, because of connection and money, are unscathed by the economic shitinnes we live in
• Because the economy is shit, companies are grasping to get out of red numbers
• Because we have had mediocre to sheerly bad managers in almost every industry for most of the last three decades thanks to some economic bonanzas, the only way they see they can improve the margins is by doing stupid things like back to office

I like Hanlon's razor for these cases: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I this, I feel, is indeed that.

Exactly! I would add that you can still use "no binario" or "no binaria" in a (somewhat) respectful manner. For instance, you can say "persona no binaria" (non binary person), "comunidad no binaria" (non binary community), because both nouns are feminine, you can use the feminine alteration of "no binario". For masculine I would go with "su género es no binario" (its gender in non binary), since gender is masculine and "su" doesn't imply any gender at all.

Again, not an expert just another fellow native Spanish speaker with a bit of a geekiness about languages.

I was actually just trolling and with low effort. But I appreciate the wall of text. It means I've done it well.

Thanks for the compliments, have a pleasant evening.

Because, in case you didn't realise, we don't think that waging wars, hoarding nukes and "exporting freedom and democracy" is a good international policy nor a wise use of tax payers' money.

But what do I know, right? I just have low crime rates, an affordable university system and don't have to sell my kidney for a ride in an ambulance. All the while having 1 month paid vacation and a minimum salary that allows me to not live in the streets.

Sorry, I'm out of line.

Sorry, I cannot hear you over the sound of my state funded healthcare system and minimum wage over the poverty line.