Jesus intended his movement to be for Jews, as a Jewish reformation of their own faith. Paul was the one that changed it and made it for gentiles.
Jesus seemingly believed himself to be a prophet. He titles himself “son of man” which God called the prophet Jeremiah, and he says “a prophet is not welcome in his hometown” when he went home and no one took him seriously. He was mislabeled, and only the gospel written over a hundred years after (John) made him out to be literally God. Nowhere in the first and oldest (Mark) does he ever make any claims of the sort.
Paul was likely a Roman plant (he was Herodian, and converted suspiciously quickly while simultaneously preaching contradictory messages compared to Jesus.) So his attempts to keep the movement alive were focused primarily on outsiders, since it was clear that the Jewish people weren’t convinced and converting to “the way” in significant numbers.
Funny that, the people who are literally from the place where it happened don’t consider it to be true but a metric fuck ton of people who got second or third hand accounts do. Hmmm… If that was anything but Christianity, Christians would be able to see the flaw in that a mile away.
Nothing, they hoped Paul would (and if you compare his teachings with the gospels, he was successful) subvert the movement from the anti-organized religion countercultural message of Jesus into something that would either die out or become a tool for them to weaponize.
Every Messianic Jew I’ve ever met has been born into that religion. Maybe there are some Jews who convert and become Messianic Jews, but I think it’s rare.
Record high prices coinciding with record high profits and plunging cost of good sold, followed by even higher prices. They are testing to see what the pain thresholds are. All that’s gonna happen is that business will start to collapse as consumer spending plummets because people can barely afford to survive. Will the system autocorrect or collapse? Will the government ever enforce consumer protection laws ever again? ¯\(ツ)/¯
Occam’s razor says the more simple/plausible explanation, that a huge increase in the monetary supply causing higher prices through supply and demand, is about a thousand times more plausible than tens of thousands of corporations simultaneously deciding to coordinate to fix prices despite that it’s in each of their best interests individually to break with that scheme. With no actual evidence of a concerted attempt across the entire economy to fix prices (not to be confused with a couple corporations having board meetings where someone bragged about raising prices).
Or, in simple terms - it’s not that every single other good in the entire economy has suddenly become worth more as the result of some overarching conspiracy. It’s that they printed a bunch of money and it’s now worth less.
I would recommend anyone who still believes the “greedflation” thing spends an hour reading some articles critical of the theory. Not really looking for a debate about it tbh.
No, just the last word. There’s a lot more to it that clearly explains why it’s a systematic failure that led to this, and it’s a lot more complex that just over supply of cash. You can’t stop looking at other facts once you’ve researched just enough to find an answer you’re comfortable with.
Your previous comment was basically a massive industry wide conspiracy theory though, so their response of a more sensible answer to give you something a bit more concrete to go on was pretty reasonable to me.
Not a conspiracy theory but the inevitable conclusion of a system left unchecked by regulation for too long. We have slowly rolled ourselves to the edge for decades yet have been able to maintain a very precarious balance, until a worldwide pandemic kicked the cart and set it rolling down the hill.
Did the entire planet have too much cash and an urge to spend it all at once? Yes. That only explains the flashpoint where prices exploded. Demand was at an unprecedented high from the world coming out of lock down at the same time that supply was at an all time low thanks to the pandemic. (There’s a lot more to all of this of course, but there are going to be countless PhD thesis written about this macroeconomic clusterfuck and this isn’t one of them.) So far, this all makes sense. Where things go sideways is when supply stabilizes, cost of goods sold start to go down, and yet prices continue to rise. Remember how the fed thought that information was going to be a short, temporary spike that didn’t require intervention? This is why. They expected the system to autocorrect, but it didn’t. Prices continue to rise. People have less money. Prices continue to rise. Interest rates skyrocket in an attempt to cool the economy. Prices continue to rise. Consumer spending slows but prices rise.
Corporations are literally geared towards maximizing profits. It’s not a conspiracy if they are working as intended. The failure, IMHO, is in how we have chosen to manage our economy. Complete deregulation and a slew of other choices have brought us here. Not a conspiracy but also not as simple as “too much money” or “too much cheap credit”. So, amending my original comment, yes it is in part inflation but it isn’t just inflation.
PS: Credit card debt in the US surpassed $1T. We’re running on literal borrowed time and every business around us is trying to find new and creative ways to squeeze every penny we don’t have out of us, by design, without a check or a balance in sight.
It is specifically a conspiracy theory that there’s a price-fixing cartel across the entire economy. You can give rhetoric about unchecked capitalism and all this, but the fact still remains that we’re talking about hundreds to thousands of companies that would have to opt into this scheme (drawing the line fairly arbitrarily at “the ones that comprise most market share”).
I raised this point already - individual corporations are incentivized to break with a price-fixing scheme because it increases market share. Consumers don’t want to pay exorbitant prices if there’s any alternative. Didn’t hear a response.
You keep saying “across the entire economy” but not every sector of the economy was equally affected.
Also, there is good competition in some sectors (where it’s easy and cheap to produce the product and the supply chain isn’t very complicated) and definitely not others. Look at gas prices, which were involved in a lot of the inflation and its secondary effects. You can save a few cents here or there by shopping around, but otherwise the price is relatively similar (and relatively high) everywhere you look in an area.
In some sectors there’s basically no competition at all. My Internet bill rose, do you think that’s because of the money supply or because there’s essentially no competition amongst telecom providers basically anywhere in the country?
A huge part of inflation is still rising rental rates. In my city about six companies own most of the large apartment buildings that people live in. Something tells me they’d have no problems raising rents between the six of them just because they easily can.
Company A raises prices and reports record quarterly profits. Company B is aware of this because both the price raising and quarterly profit report for Company A are public. Company B raises prices too so that they can get also get more profit. Company C either does the same thing, or there is no company C because rubber stamped mergers and acquisitions for decades have allowed a handful of companies to dominate every industry, sometimes multiple industries.
None of this is a conspiracy. It’s Econ 101 level “how things work.”
Econ 101 covers supply/demand curve, i.e., how markets create prices as an equilbrium between consumer/producer, and how a company arbitrarily spiking prices will cause them to lose market share because their customers don’t want to pay more for the same thing.
I’m sorry you’re under the impression that the economy is controlled equally by tens of thousands of corporations. Its much more like 2 dozen control nearly all money that presently exists. They wake up everyday and fix prices. They’ve been doing it a lot ever since 2008 and the utter downfall of consumer protections. I also have no fucking clue what you mean when you say that not fixing prices is in their best interests?? Like, you realize that by price fixing they make billions of dollars more than they should be? How tf is making even more money not in the interest of a corporation? They literally profit off of wars. Any possible thing that increases the amount of capital they generate is in their own best interests. Even employing children, or slaves. Capitalism is designed specifically to be exploitative of as many people as possible to generate as much capital as possible.
I’m sorry you’re under the impression that the economy is controlled equally by tens of thousands of corporations. Its much more like 2 dozen control nearly all money that presently exists.
There are 8 million businesses in the U.S. We have problems with monopolization, but to the level where a cross-economy price fixing scheme could possibly be implemented, we are not at that point. That’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, not something to just believe dogmatically because you don’t like capitalism.
I also have no fucking clue what you mean when you say that not fixing prices is in their best interests??
You could start by just asking me. This is basic game theory. Market price of a good is 10 dollars, ACME and BLLC corp meet and fix prices at 15 dollars. ACME corp goes to market at 15 dollars, BLLC corp goes against the secret agreement and goes to market at 10 dollars. BLLC gets ACME corp’s customers as long as they retain their price at 15. Now take the same example and spread it across hundreds, thousands of companies, keeping in mind that this level of coordination would leave behind proof, witnesses, and take an extraordinary level of coordination. Non-participation in a price fixing cartel for a minority company could mean capturing the entire market, and anyone who was participating would immediately be incentivized to exit it.
This is what is being posited, versus the dirt simple explanation that more money has been printed and has thus decreased in value. And we know a ton of money was printed.
Price-fixing cartels aren’t impossible, however, they do become completely impossible to create or maintain at a scale like that. There is simply way too much competition. It’s an extremely elaborate, poorly substantiated theory to explain something there’s an obvious, well-substantiated explanation for already. I don’t know how you guys think about applying the scientific method, but to me, that ain’t it.
Keep in mind we’re not talking about simply “6 companies dominate a single industry”. The burden of proof for “greedflation” is simultaneous price-fixing behavior across the entire economy. Across essentially all corporations.
It’s an established phenomena. But, just because it’s established as a concept, doesn’t mean it’s prevalent, or especially not that it could be used to explain simultaneous increases in prices across the entire economy.
Here’s an introductory article on price leadership:
Breaks it down into “barometric”, “collusive” and “dominant” categories. Going through each one -
Barometric being the phenomena where all the firms in a space look to the dominant firm for indication on what to do with their prices. Assumes heavy market concentration in the dominant firm and a marked imbalance to analyze market trends or predict upcoming cost shifts on the part of other companies. Does not make any sense in a space with several near-equally sized entrants in the market exist with similar capabilities for determining prices and macro conditions.
Collusive being where they have actually agreed to fix prices together. This is of course illegal and requires ongoing coordination across basically every major company in the economy. This is mostly what we’ve been talking about in this thread and requires extraordinary proof, because the level of coordination required to make this happen is extreme, especially across not just one industry, but every industry. Or, to be fair, at least the basic industrial/manufacturing industries upon which all other industries depend.
Finally there’s the “dominant” category. That’s where a single dominant firm (or cartel of multiple firms) is setting prices - particularly, setting them downwards - and other smaller firms are forced to lower their prices to survive. This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense with upwards price-fixing, because less dominant firms become more competitive as a result, not less.
Here’s what it looks like from a business perspective: if I am a meat packing company, I need to go to the farmers and buy the pork that is going to be processed by my factory. The pig farmer says I will sell you my pork for four dollars a pound. I asked for him to sell at two dollars a pound, but he simply refuses and sells to somebody who paid is willing to pay a higher price.
Now, I can do two things to lower the price:
I can collude with all of the other meat packing companies and refused to buy pork at four dollars a pound, and we set our willing price at two dollars a pound. If we get enough other companies to collude together as a cartel, then we can force the prices down. This is generally illegal.
The second option is through consolidation: first, I get enough money to buy up all of the other meat packing companies. Then when I go back to the pig farmers, they only have one buyer to sell to, which is my business. So I get to set the prices, which will be at whatever price I stipulate. Walmart is famous for doing this.
No… Not to my understanding. Inflation, while an average, is not equally rising across all things. It is possible for the few that control food to raise prices together. Same with clothing and other industries. I think it’s also exacerbated by the shipping fiasco during covid and the fact that corporations always want more profit. As a general rule, any time prices rise for any reason, and shipping can make everything rise together, if people still pay that price, it will not be lowered.
Yeah, so we barely touched on the actual shortage issues from COVID in the thread here. That is for the most part a short term phenomena, and prices can actually resume prior levels after disasters and such like that, while actual monetary supply increases are typically permanent. And yeah, some industries (like energy) are pretty fundamental and can affect prices in a lot of other places, and there was additionally the energy shortage triggered by the Ukraine invasion. All these factors can cause price seeking and instability, but the key thing to point out is that that’s transitory, because after some time the costs of goods reequilibriate. But if you’ve increased the money supply 50%, then the price increases become permanent.
If you’re going to bring in Occam’s Razor, it’s probably less tenable to argue the ‘a conspiracy is more complex than the alternative’ argument when there’s obviously a set of shared motives driving labor costs down while at the same time pushing up profit margins. The fact that profit margins are up does a lot of damage to the ‘it can’t be greedflation’ theory
argument when there’s obviously a set of shared motives driving labor costs down while at the same time pushing up profit margins.
Well, just because they have shared motives doesn’t mean they’re going to act in concert with each other. They’re competitors. One’s market share loss is another’s market share gain.
The fact that profit margins are up does a lot of damage to the ‘it can’t be greedflation’ theory
It might help to clarify what “it” we’re talking about here, or for that matter, what exactly we’re referring to with “greedflation”. To be totally clear, companies will raise prices when the market will bear it, and when they have a monopoly or cartel, that can be nearly indefinitely. The thing I’m objecting to in the first place here is the notion that that’s just universally the case across the entire economy, which strikes me as ridiculous and a way for the government/central bank to deflect blame for monetary inflation. And to your point - for any highly competitive market, it’s a very elaborate explanation versus just that supply and demand has caused prices to increase because the supply of money has gone up, which is a very simple and fundamental phenomenon in econ. As a rule of thumb, the more diversified the market is, the less likely that is to be the case.
We did see a big supply shock when Russia partially cut out of the global energy market, causing the market to chase after oil from the remaining producers, causing an increase in price. That’s not some new phenomenon, that is also just basic supply and demand. It does cause price shocks, even if their costs didn’t go up, even if labor didn’t see the benefit. That’s not, however, some permanent state of “inflation” like monetary inflation which is just never reversed for the entire remaining lifetime of a currency - supply shocks are transient (at least until the fossil fuels actually run out).
The problem with consolidation is that companies that gain a majority market share are operating at the lowest of margins, so there is little room for new competitors to move into that market space.
Since these companies already own the market, it is too expensive for another company to enter that market space while competing successfully. The larger and more established companies already have economies of scale that are tilted in their favor. The only way for a new company to compete successfully against an entrenched business is by leveraging new technology or huge investments to bring their cost lower than their competitors.
And we’ve seen that happen in the past with agribusiness, they get large investments and just buy up all the other companies and put them under their own umbrella.
The loan on my van is paid off, The bank is paying me interest on my savings again, I have a years worth of costco rice stored, and the campsites by the river where i live in my van is empty because everyone too broke to go on holiday. Life is sweet. (No part of this comment is hyperbole)
Mechanically, not upgraded, no. But it was an empty van with an aluminium roof rack when I bought it, and I did the fitout myself. Awning, solar panels, batteries, inverter, fridge, shower, ventillation etc.
There is inflation I agree, but I think a significant percentage is from price gounging, around 30%. I saw a study detailing this that I could find and link if you want.
If you’re wondering how it can happen simultaneously accross whole countries and much of the world, you can look up the concept of “price leadership.”
No, it’s inflation. Too much money chasing too few goods. Caused partially by years of central banks across the world injecting new money into financial markets and partially by the massive dump of new money into the consumer economy in 2020-2022.
100%. I don’t know why anyone expected anything different - we’ve been printing and printing and printing money for the last 10 years. Chickens are home, roosting.
That’s fucking moronic… The US government has had that money printer running since Nixon… It’s just garbage all around regardless… even though they are and have been some slightly less garbage parts
This particular theory is far too prevalent. Corporate executives are tugging themselves silly at the sight of people blaming the government instead of the people who paid them.
Prices are going up because people are willing to pay higher prices than they were. We still have not found a new ceiling. It’s not “all the money printed by Trump” that caused a giant spike in inflation (that only played a small part). It’s record profits in a variety of industries convincing anyone and everyone to charge more.
I've just recently switched because Chrome yet again stuffed up all my task bar shortcuts (whatsapp, keep, calenders etc) so they all just loaded as tabs.
Firefox doesn't even have the ability to create task bar icons so for a long time I never bothered with it.
Fixed the fix: “Leaders of Religion That Relies on Internalized Cognitive Dissonance Surprised When A More Insidious Manipulation Out-Manipulates Them”
When I made the switch I was shocked at well it blocks ads. It still surprises me to this day. Yeah, it takes a little longer to load, but I couldn’t care less.
I’m not familiar with Raw Story, can anybody confirm their reliability in general? This article seems solid but the name makes me think of all of those weird right wing “news” websites. Looking over it a bit it definitely doesn’t seem to be one of those though so idk.
“It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — “turn the other cheek” — [and] to have someone come up after to say, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?” And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, “I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,” the response would not be, “I apologize.” The response would be, “Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak.” And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
I take all articles with a grain of salt. Look at the person who wrote the article, look at what they post and think for yourself if that person has bias or not.
Most of the time people will have a bias which is normal for humans, we tribilize into groups.
“It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — “turn the other cheek” — [and] to have someone come up after to say, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?” And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, “I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,” the response would not be, “I apologize.” The response would be, “Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak.” And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
And there’s also Occam’s razor. MAGA shitheads are hateful. This is probably true on that alone. But I’ve also seen a couple other articles of Christian’s alarmed at the same trend. The truthiness is strong. I can feel it.
Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that usually favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and promptly correcting any false or misleading reports.
It’s all fun and games until your wish comes true though sheer regional air temperature … that’s not something I wanted to witness before my surprise cremation
I wish my country’s government had the testacles to cap prices on food. I order food mostly online and I compared prices from 2 years ago and most things are at least 200% more expensive, cheese for example is like 600% though.
Dont. Here in Hungary the commie ruling party (fidesz) capped some food prices, which lead to world recorder food inflation (47% measured), and top 3 overall inflation (36% measured). A lot of food products are 100-300% more expensive, also i cant say any product (not just food) that isnt became at least 40% more expensive. When caps lifted, there was a smaller price drop.
They also capped the fuel prices, then when they revoked the cap, the fuel became one of the most expensive from the surrounding countries.
Yea we have a food inflation pretty close to those measured numbers though in reality its a lot higher and that’s without any caps. Also how could a food price cap cause inflation in food prices? That’s literally the thing you are capping.
The things that are capped no longer produce (as much) profit, so food suppliers move to items that do bring in profit. Uncapped goods are now more desirable, and the suppliers increase prices to try to make up for the shortfall caused by price controls, making uncapped items even more expensive.
Government intervention like price controls always makes things more expensive, it’s just a question of where that expense is spread to.
No, it isnt lowered the price, but you will pay for it elsewhere, indirectly, same like we are in hungary (that also caused rise in inflation). Communism not worked, and never will
Yea, price capping is as much communism as having public healthcare and when the price of electricity was capped it lowered the prices massively.
What was going on was the local power companies made deals with other countries and basically acted as middle men for reselling that power for a massive markup. Our government made a mandatory power plan that forces power companies to produce electricity locally for local supply at a fixed price and that pretty much fixed that. Those companies couldn’t sell power at a massive markup anymore because everyone would just switch to the government power plan then.
No, the the prices don’t get lowered on capping them, just you pay it from elsewhere. For example in hungary the commie orban capped the electricity and and natural gas prices, so the people pay less on the bills they get (well, not always since they restricted the “discount” only to private person users, and with limit, if someone out of these, they pay much more than the actual real international market price), but they pay of the real, actual price from their tax (in hungary every taxpayer pays 17000 hungarian forint extra over the actual natural gas bills, just they dont see it, as its taken from the usual tax). So the dumb people just seeing the lower price on the bill they actually get, but not the tax money that is used to pay their “discounts”. Also, as the companies getting the electricity, and natural gas on “govermental market price”, which is 2x more than “discounted” price in electricity, and 7x more in natural gas (about 4x more than the real international market price), which causes prices going up in restaurants, groceries, every commodities that are made, or processed by local companies, which causing the skyhigh inflation. Its just simple common sense, and the economic fundamentals, but a lot of hungarian people lack of these, and not just hungarians :(
Who? How could cause? In EU the second highest inflation is in slovakia (first is hungary), which is the half of the hungarian inflation. The difference is few hundred kms, and that in slovakia they dont have price capping commies like orban, and his comrades. And yes, here in hungary the real inflation is much more higher than the “measured” (ordered).
They always were, orban was a secretary of the communist youth organization (KISZ), and most of his party members had high level functions in KISZ and the state communist party (MSZMP). They currently also act like that, with some fascist spicing on the surface.
They are commies, not communists. These are not the same. Communists actually beliving in something, commies arent. These are commie style things: -govermental prices -govermental success propaganda (picking some real, but mostly fake stats, and cheering these up, while hiding the not so good statistics, and saying those are fake, made by western subversion, telling everything good is made by them and the supreme leader, everything thats not good is done by western subversion) -governmental demonizing propaganda (actually same as in full commie times, like “declining decadent west, but the mighty east”, who tells something against their myths is a western spy, everyone is weak and unsuitable who isn’t the, “fight” “war” against everybody who is not them -govermental pressure to leave, or give up to them everything that isn’t controlled by the party -fidesz (orban’s party) voted against revealing communist agent files, 23 times, which means they are anti-communist only in words, but actually they are in these files as agents. Probably this how putin is blackmailing orban, as they have a copy of every document from the hungarian goverment from 1945-1989, and maybe more. -they using the same slogans, and passwords like the commies did -they act very similarly as their predecessors in rákosi, and kádár system (the two eras, and dictators of the commie ruling) did
How so? In my country, certain basic food items are priced capped AND rationed, meaning you’re only allowed to buy a certain amount of it at a time.
> but but but muh freedum market$$
No! Worldwide, the agricultural sector is THE MOST SUBSIDISED economic field. You can’t have it both ways. If taxpayers’ money is used to prop up your business, you have a duty to the taxpayers and country.
Subsidies may distort the market but they don’t change the existence of the supply/demand curve. Any producer of a product is going to sell their goods to the highest bidder, and if someone is capping what a product can sell for that means capping what they can purchase the product for. Grocery stores aren’t going to sell for a loss.
If the central government enacts a scheme of rationing and central purchasing, that’s one thing. But in a free market situation if a grocery in country A will buy lentils for €1 a kg and country B can only pay €.50 then the lentils are getting sold to country A until that demand is fulfilled. Which means shortages in country B.
Considering how much billionaires hoard, im happy just tacking a sales quota on at the same time so they just have to eat losses for a bit. People eating is more important, and frankly anything that forces the robber barons to lose money back into the system is a good thing
Cool, so, the government can just turn into bandits if we don’t like what private citizens do on their own land. Oh, and if they complain, why not just send them to the gulag?
A society that values an individuals right to profit over the collectives right to eat is not a just or moral society, and it is the collective responsibility of the many to change the society to preclude from such possibilities. If that means sending mentally ill speculators and unethical industrial farmers to prison, then so be it. Better than sending the poor and minorities there for crimes of poverty only necessitated by others greed in the first place.
Speaking of gulags, why does the US have both the highest prison population and highest per capita prison population in the world, if we don’t already send people to the gulag?
You might have a point if communist nations didn’t have a history of dismal agricultural failures and capitalist countries didn’t have a history of food surplus. Lmao
Also, whataboutism with the US prison population doesn’t excuse locking up political prisoners, since you’re apparently fine apologizing for that.
Political prisoners like Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Fred Burton, “Xinachitli” Alvaro Hernandez, Reverend Joy Powell, Ghassan Elashi, Mufid Abdulqader and Shukri Abu-Baker, Eric King, Daniel Hale, Alex Saab, Ed Poindexter, Veronza Bowers, Jessica Reznicek, Emmanuel Quinones, or any of the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers illegally detained at the border and held in concentration camps every year? Or lest we forget Edward Snowden, who fled the nation to avoid becoming a political prisoner, or Chelsea Manning who spent 7 years as a political prisoner, or Julian Assange of course?
Look, I’m not defending political prisoners, I’m calling out your random talk of gulag as what it is, a lack of reflection on the most heavily criminalized and incarcerated society in known history and a rabid reactionary whataboutism when faced with the inherent injustice the system we currently have represents.
You couldn’t list off the political prisoners of communist regimes in a month if you never stopped typing. And yes, I got your point. It was whataboutism. You want to talk about overuse of prisons in the US, you can, but the US doesn’t lock up people because they disagree with the government. Every communist regime has. Brutal authoritarianism is a defining feature of communism.
Taking the first person on that list, he was convicted of murder. If you think he didn’t do it, okay, and he denies it, but he has had his applications for clemency, appeals, and a jury trial to press his case. He’s not a political prisoner, he’s a convicted murderer. Whether you think he’s guilty or not. Dead people aren’t invented. That’s not a “made up crime.”
This is one reason why I have a hard time talking to people like you. You assume a conclusion and deny even the possibility that someone convicted of murder may have done it, then draw a conspiracy about political motives for imprisonment.
Okay, kid. Here’s an experiment for you. You say the US locks up political prisoners and is worse than communist nations. Go to the street right outside the White House and hold a sign with your favorite criticism of Joe Biden. Then, go fly to China and go interview people in Tianenmen Square about what precisely happened there in 1989. See what happens.
I only asked you why the US has the highest population of prisoners in the history of humanity.
Jfc. Make an honest fucking argument. You and I could talk about how to reduce the prison population here, but the fact is that however flawed the US justice system is, it is punishing people for crimes, not political thought or agitation. You and I may think some sentences are excessive, or some crimes shouldn’t be crimes, or sentences should be committed.
But the Chinese government will lock you up in prison if you disagree with the ruling party. Here, the opposition has multiple fucking TV networks with seats in the White House press room. Fucking clown show.
There is definitive evidence in Peltier’s case that the witnesses were coerced by the FBI, which makes their testimony inadmissible, yet the white supremacist judge still allowed it to be entered and used against him. There’s no evidence, just manufactured consent to placate tubes like you with no critical thinking skills.
I have already been threatened by the government for my ENTIRELY PEACEFUL speech, because they don’t like when you stand on the corner with signs that have the names of murderous police officers. Told that if I continued doing what I did, I’d be put “in the ground.” Totally normal behavior for a non-totalitarian police force.
His lawyers have had lots of time to make that argument in court. I’m not in jail because I haven’t gotten into a shootout with the FBI. And I note that you’re still here, in our imperfect country, ignoring my entire point and trying to pretend that you don’t have free speech. Yet, still speaking.
Eminent domain involves compensation at fair market value, not theft. And typically, we use property taxes to motivate property owners to find economically productive uses for their land/buildings.
a) you’d be surprised how little the “fair market value” often is under eminent domain
b) no we don’t, if we did we’d be largely following georgism… The majority of current property taxes tax improvements on the land, not the land itself. It’s often cheaper to have an empty lot than a functioning business.
Land value taxes are great. But even without them, it makes little sense to have a potentially functioning, commercially viable plot of land sitting empty. Any rational company is going to sell or lease that land out. Including farmers.
But even without them, it makes little sense to have a potentially functioning, commercially viable plot of land sitting empty.
“It makes little sense” and yet it happens all of the time precisely because unlike the fictional policy set you concocted for your argument, we actually don’t incentivize people to make the best use of their land through property taxes.
Most localities in the US tax land improvements instead of the land itself, which is the exact opposite of what you were saying we do.
The portion of the tax due to land value in and of itself is paltry compared to the tax collected on land improvements.
People living in condos have no actual land they own and yet are taxed a percentage of the resale value of the improvement (i.e. what they actually own) yearly.
Just because you have no idea how property taxes work doesn’t mean that they work the way you dreamed up.
When you get a bill for your taxes it itemizes the amount paid to land value vs the amount paid due to improvements. Want to take a guess which amount is bigger?
I’ve always seen the same tax rate on land value as improvement value. And yes, I do know how property taxes work. I pay them in three states, you arrogant child.
Even if the rates are identical, the amounts are lower because “unimproved” land has less “fair market value”, humble grampy!
In California, the property taxes also don’t even rise with the value of property generally. So someone newly buying a condo will pay much, much more in property taxes than say someone that holds a vacant lot for decades…like there are in Oakland…where they had to pass a ballot measure to start taxing people for holding onto vacant lots… Which according to you could never exist…cuz of property taxes.
Most food here is locally produced, I don’t see how that would create a shortage. Like people aren’t going to sell their grocery stores cuz their margins are thin again and farming is so heavily subsidised that I don’t see it effecting farmers.
And you’re wrong. Farmers and grocery stores are already operating on thin margins. Sure we could double subsidies but then why not just make food free instead? How about we just make food free for people who can’t afford it, maybe with some sort of special card
Farmers yes, grocery stores not anymore. Profits of companies is public info here and they started racking it in the moment the massive ‘inflation’ started. My parents live near a farm and they just buy veggies directly from them for like a fraction of the price, I unfortunately live in a city though. Prices are better at local markets but there arent many of those.
Prices are better from a farm because you’re skipping two steps on the distribution chain, at least - a food warehouse and the grocery store. Could be three, some grocery stores buy from an intermediate warehouse distributor that services smaller stores.
So potatoes might be sold at .20 on a farm and .50 at the store, because they need to be sold twice to reach the store, transported twice, bagged, washed, stored twice, and finally placed in the retail front for sale.
Why did you ignore the part where I said that the profits for grocery stores soared? Producing food has not become more expensive, that’s all public info here.
If a local producer can get more selling to someone in the next country, they will. Basic economics. Prohibit them from doing so and they might plant something more profitable or just say “fuck it” and let their fields lie fallow, if they’re not making a profit. Farming ain’t free and farmers are on thin margins.
Small farms are long gone. Farmers the the most heavily subsidized sector in the country, and they’re not run by Ma and pa, but big multi-national corporations who use extractive agriculture that damages the soil, results in worse yields than more sustainable agriculture, and requires insane amounts of chemical fertilizers, is rapidly contributing to the death of all of our most critical pollinators.
I have really almost no sympathy for monoculture farmers who grow thousands of acres of almonds using trillions of gallons of water in a state perpetually under severe drought.
Literally, just by seizing the lands used to grow alfalfa for Saudi Arabia and almonds in California, the majority of the country could be fed cheap on low water, low maintanence, high yield food forests. We don’t need to subsidize murder farms where pigs are fed to their children as slurry when that same land could be used for vertical gardening.
The use of farmland for exclusively profit driven reasons is what drove the Great Depression. Farmers don’t deserve A profit if what they’re growing isn’t sustainable or catered towards the health of the people.
It runs the risk of affecting the farmers a lot especially in Europe where they will soon have to deal with very expensive electricity. So the government would have to know that it’s really price gouging and not a necessity (I believe it’s price gouging, but governments can’t (or shouldn’t) make rash decisions on beliefs.)
I never understood people that like metal. Some people are fascinated by this band called meshuggah and it’s juste impressive body coordination by following algorithmic rules that end up sounding like random noise. The meaningless screaming is garbage. I hate vocals and screeching at the microphone isn’t better.
I hope you realize you sound like a boomer, I've literally heard my boomer mother make the same argument about different bands I listen to. If we were having this conversation a couple decades, I would expect to hear something like "Goddamn kids with their hip hop, saggy pants, and loud music"
If i sound like a bommers for not understanding how anyone can like noise as music so be it. I listen to all kind of music. Even Mongolian throat singing is somewhat melodic while metal sounds to me like noise.
I’d be happy to listen to anything you’d recommend If you got something that’s got at least some melodies, not someone screaming at the mic while another is hitting the drum like a maniac with some electric guitar backing it or vice versa.
I personally dislike Meshugga because I don’t care for gutteral screaming, but even my drunk ass isn’t arrogant enough to call it garbage just because it’s not to my taste.
I always equate it to spicy food. It’s painful and unpleasant, but you can’t stop going back for more. It’s a sort of weird catharsis that follows, as well.
lemmyshitpost
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.