Politics It's the economy, stupid! Gas, healthcare, & chickens!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Two things: the line starts getting really steep right around the beginning of Reagan’s second term lol

And it sure feels like endgame phase for capitalism; if companies see the end coming because of climate catastrophe and the upcoming social upheaval, they’d be a lot more aggressive about how they’re stealing from labor.

I guess the question is: do they think that’ll save them? What’s the goal? Setting shareholders up on private islands or floating continents or something while the earth below burns? What do they need all this money for?
 
“You’ll own nothing and like it” is bandied about as a lefty commie conspiracy, but it’s clearly the capitalists wet dream…
 
sxoo8FT.jpg
 
A statement I found really illuminating:

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
Click to expand...
 
Are Labor Costs Driving Inflation? (No)

Fascinating research from the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, pondering the impact of wage gains on inflation.

Counterintuitively, they found that rising wages have a minimal impact on inflation. How little? The study found that a “1% point increase in labor costs causes only a 0.15% rise in core PCE inflation” over four years – an increase of less than 0.04% annually.
Click to expand...


ECi.png
 
Last edited:
MickZagger said:
I’m a Teamster and 4th generation union member. A strong middle class is a strong economy. Unions are the pillar of the middle class. The shift is just beginning. Big contract coming up for us that will set an example.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%
Fingers crossed.
 


Researchers found that cash transfer programmes were associated with significant reductions in mortality among children under five years of age and women
Click to expand...
 
Box Breakdown

The Y-o-Y percent change in cardboard box demand as measured by the three-month moving average (which is used to reduce monthly volatility) is down 8.3%. This is the largest decline since the Great Recession when demand fell 12%. The last four times Y-o-Y demand has fallen by 4% or more, a recession has occurred three times (dotcom, housing bust, Covid) and the Fed got lucky in 1994/95.
Click to expand...
And here I was thinking we dodged a bullet on the R word. Just look to the cardboard box numbers, people.
 
THE HCP said:
SO it looks like it’s shitty EVERYWHERE, not just Portland?
Click to expand...
Portland and Oregon actually funded solutions and they appear to be working.

Now we just have to stop the police and bootlickers from poisoning the well and walking back our progress, while keeping our leaders feet to the fire. Build up, not out. Improve walkabilty and public transportation. Building up rather than out will help public transport be more efficient and effective.

Improve access to treatment. Converting unused office space to housing helps with building up.

Change permitting to encourage building up. Building out costs just as much, but more of the infrastructure is covered by the community rather than the builders.

The solutions are well within our grasp, and we have the funding.

We just need to keep it going.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
Portland and Oregon actually funded solutions and they appear to be working.

Now we just have to stop the police and bootlickers from poisoning the well and walking back our progress, while keeping our leaders feet to the fire. Build up, not out. Improve walkabilty and public transportation. Building up rather than out will help public transport be more efficient and effective.

Improve access to treatment. Converting unused office space to housing helps with building up.

Change permitting to encourage building up. Building out costs just as much, but more of the infrastructure is covered by the community rather than the builders.

The solutions are well within our grasp, and we have the funding.

We just need to keep it going.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're in favor of the urban growth boundary.
 
tlongII said:
Sounds like you're in favor of the urban growth boundary.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's far more efficient and healthier for people to walk everywhere than it is to drive everywhere.

Once experiencing a walkable city people generally prefer it to say... Houston. Or even Boise. Downtown Boise is nice, but because it's built up.

The sprawl on the way to Boise... Blech.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Click to expand...

Voodoo said:
It’s almost like having more money means you have higher standards of living, this translating to… higher living standards, I am shocked, shocked!
Click to expand...

They are about as “progressive” as payday lenders and check cashing joints. These are symptoms of societal problems, not improvements. More people are unable to manage traditional bank accounts and are in turn left to resort to these chincy third party money transfer apps which are essentially prepaid debit accounts (remember, those things that used to be for poor people). It’s just more cronyism disguised as convenience. These apps track and report to the IRS and are subject to collections/judgements from creditors. They also charge transfer fees. There used to be a time when your broke ass parents could actually cash their paycheck and buy groceries with cash to feed you even if they were in debt. Now they can take it all electronically the second it’s direct deposited. And they do. Garnishments are on the rise in direct correlation with these new forms of money management.
 
jonnyboy said:
They are about as “progressive” as payday lenders and check cashing joints. These are symptoms of societal problems, not improvements. More people are unable to manage traditional bank accounts and are in turn left to resort to these chincy third party money transfer apps which are essentially prepaid debit accounts (remember, those things that used to be for poor people). It’s just more cronyism disguised as convenience. These apps track and report to the IRS and are subject to collections/judgements from creditors. They also charge transfer fees. There used to be a time when your broke ass parents could actually cash their paycheck and buy groceries with cash to feed you even if they were in debt. Now they can take it all electronically the second it’s direct deposited. And they do. Garnishments are on the rise in direct correlation with these new forms of money management.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing cash transfer programs with cash apps.

The cash transfer program this is referring to is giving poor people money.

It's the best and most effective kind of welfare. Give money to the people who don't have enough and they almost always get more out of a dollar than they would get from any other government program.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I think you're confusing cash transfer programs with cash apps.

The cash transfer program this is referring to is giving poor people money.

It's the best and most effective kind of welfare. Give money toethe people who don't have enough and they almost always get more out of a dollar than they would get from any other government program.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I indeed was referring to cash transfer apps.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Yes. It's far more efficient and healthier for people to walk everywhere than it is to drive everywhere.

Once experiencing a walkable city people generally prefer it to say... Houston. Or even Boise. Downtown Boise is nice, but because it's built up.

The sprawl on the way to Boise... Blech.
Click to expand...

Might be more efficient and healthier...but it also drives up housing costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top