what's wrong with socialism?

[CauseImbetta]

The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of someone else’s money.

Capitalism the same. The USA ran out of money so now borrow trillions from China.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The government invests through the stock market in private enterprise. It can take smaller stakes in many companies and still own but not control a sig chunk of the private economy. The proceeds from dividends and gains can fund retirement programs (that's what I think it does in NW) or fund other forms of income redistribution. You keep market incentives in place while giving society as a whole a vested stake in the market and a direct benefit (rather than some trickle down). I actually prefer that to direct public ownership of "strategic industries", I think that's all BS.

I agree that's a smoother way to implement socialism but where I disagree is on the point concerning control of strategic industries. I still think it should be exercised in this market socialist manner instead of like the old command economy style but my point is the government shouldn't merely have ownership but also control.

Think of the fossil fuel industry, its an industry where the negative externalities potentially threaten life as we know it and market forces aren't enough to rein them in. In that case the government should exercise some control and direct those corporations to act in the long term interests of the planet instead of the short term interests of their shareholders.

 

[Madmick]

Capitalism the same. The USA ran out of money so now borrow trillions from China.

Dumb. China holds debt, too.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As I have said in past, I like it as well, but I don’t see a realistic way to separate the value of land from the value that improvements to it make. The rent / cross incentives / lack of a true market issues have me a bit stumped (why would I improve the value of an area if the govt just increases rent, but the govt needs to increase rent if the distributive effects are going to work). There is no market at work so I worry this falls down to arbitrary valuations. I think the NSWF is a more coherent theory.

The way to separate it is to make improvements deductible.

Also why exclude owner occupied land? A rented property and and owner occupied property serve the exact same function. In a geo libertarian society it would all be owned by society. In a very neutral sense, housing land and property is providing a real economic good. I can’t see why a building full of condos would be excluded, it represents a massive private sector undertaking to build.

Owner-occupied housing is only excluded from the calculation of the state's share of capital ownership; it's a reporting issue rather than a policy issue.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

There’s truth to this if I’m being honest. But this is also, imo, one of the fundamental differences between a Conservative minded person and a Liberal minded person. A lot of conservatives will have the individual approach and tend to live off of anecdotal tendencies to improve/change their environments situation. We tend to operate more independently (at least I do). That’s why you’ll get the ‘smaller government, don’t tread on me, ‘bootstraps’ type attitude. It’s just a different way of thinking. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about things outside of my control (this isn’t necessarily a conservative idea). But that doesn’t mean that I’m incapable of thinking bigger, longer term or beyond myself. But when I approach most issues I tend to view it 1st from my perspective and go from there.


And yes, as much as you may not like it, or it makes you sad -if you don’t like your situation, imo, it’s up to you to do something about it. It shouldn’t be up to everyone else to help you. Don’t make your problems, my problems. And again, there’s generalization here and I’m not going to detail out every little thing where I’ll acknowledge that certain people do need help -and I’ll agree they do- but as a general rule, improving your situation starts with you. And from my point of view, that’s how it should be. And in the US, majority of the people have access to this independence.

It's really simple, actually. If I'm giving my struggling high school buddy (or any other single individual) life advice, then yeah, I'll tell him to improve his education, increase his marketability, and get a better job, which will increase his income and standard of living. These things are 100% valid and true.

But when discussing social problems, this is 100% invalid. Why? Because it's literally impossible for everyone in society to be rich or to even have a middle-class life. By definition, if there's a middle class, there has to be a lower/working class. A class system relies on the bottom class to do onerous work, earn little, and live shitty.

The only way to truly get rid of this is to get rid of class system and make everyone equal. We know that that's not going to happen anytime soon so telling the poor to just work hard is just selling a lie. So yes, the entire conservative view on social class and upward social mobility is based on a lie.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

It's really simple, actually. If I'm giving my struggling high school buddy (or any other single individual) life advice, then yeah, I'll tell him to improve his education, increase his marketability, and get a better job, which will increase his income and standard of living. These things are 100% valid and true.

But when discussing social problems, this is 100% invalid. Why? Because it's literally impossible for everyone in society to be rich or to even have a middle-class life. By definition, if there's a middle class, there has to be a lower/working class. A class system relies on the bottom class to do onerous work, earn little, and live shitty.

The only way to truly get rid of this is to get rid of class system and make everyone equal. We know that that's not going to happen anytime soon so telling the poor to just work hard is just selling a lie. So yes, the entire conservative view on social class and upward social mobility is based on a lie.

So basically, you’re advocating for the elimination of the middle class? And here I thought the left was actually for the middle class. Who knew..


The system you’re dreaming of is a lie too. Producing ‘I have a dream’ type responses doesn’t prove otherwise. You’re essentially bitching because the world you live isn’t perfect and ‘class’ designation is your target for why that is.


I don’t agree when the system we reside in allows that anyone from any ‘class’ system has the ability to climb, or fall depending on many variables (you seem to agree with me that this is possible). Sure, opportunities may vary -even heavily- depending on which economic class you’re born into, but the fact that it’s possible to evolve from that position remains the same.


In short, I don’t agree that getting rid of a ‘class’ system would solve all the issues you claim it would -unless you have one of @worldofwarcrafts wizards available to you- it would simply produce different problems.

 

[Wingslaught]

It's really simple, actually. If I'm giving my struggling high school buddy (or any other single individual) life advice, then yeah, I'll tell him to improve his education, increase his marketability, and get a better job, which will increase his income and standard of living. These things are 100% valid and true.

But when discussing social problems, this is 100% invalid. Why? Because it's literally impossible for everyone in society to be rich or to even have a middle-class life. By definition, if there's a middle class, there has to be a lower/working class. A class system relies on the bottom class to do onerous work, earn little, and live shitty.

The only way to truly get rid of this is to get rid of class system and make everyone equal. We know that that's not going to happen anytime soon so telling the poor to just work hard is just selling a lie. So yes, the entire conservative view on social class and upward social mobility is based on a lie.

Everyone isn't equal though. People have different abilities, talents, strengths and weaknesses. Yes, all American citizens are equal under the law and should not be discriminated against based on sex, religion, race, ethnicity etc. but there will never be equality of outcomes without extreme measures taken by government that not everyone will agree with.

Btw, middle-class is rich in a relative sense. You have to start somewhere.

 

[ChillBroBaggins]

So basically, you’re advocating for the elimination of the middle class? And here I thought the left was actually for the middle class. Who knew..

You missed his main point though, nobody denies that social mobility exists for all classes (at least in the US), that an inspired kid in even the worst circumstances can shakes off his poverty. But that option only exists for an individual. The collective masses are forced into their class though, our system can't function without unskilled labor. Poverty and exploitation of labor is symptomatic in Capitalism.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

You missed his main point though, nobody denies that social mobility exists for all classes (at least in the US), that an inspired kid in even the worst circumstances can shakes off his poverty. But that option only exists for an individual. The collective masses are forced into their class though, our system can't function without unskilled labor. Poverty and exploitation of labor is symptomatic in Capitalism.

I didn’t miss that point -I don’t agree with it.


The fact that as an individual you have opportunity to ascend is not mutually exclusive with saying that everyone will ascend. There isn’t a society in existence where everyone is equal in the way he’s describing. And there are far more variables in life than simply pointing at a ‘class’ system can explain away for that. The system he’s pining for doesn’t exist, it’s fugazi, fake, fairy dust.


Introducing a system like the one he’s talking about doesn’t take away every problem ever in a system, it will just have its different own problems.

 

[ChillBroBaggins]

There isn’t a society in existence where everyone is equal in the way he’s describing. And there are far more variables in life than simply pointing at a ‘class’ system can explain away for that.

Well I agree no such society exists, but to declare that Capitalism is therefore the best we can muster seems... dubious. But then again, I'm not the person to offload Socialist theory onto you, and besides that it seems like you've already concluded it cannot work.

I do think politics should first be defined by what is achievable in theory, even if that's not possible right now. So regarding the dissolution of classes, sure, maybe it's not plausible right now. But what about when we have robotics ingrained in every major industry? We produce food the world over, right now, and humans still live in hunger. Do you agree things like this can be addressed?

 

[Gandhi]

The way to separate it is to make improvements deductible.



Owner-occupied housing is only excluded from the calculation of the state's share of capital ownership; it's a reporting issue rather than a policy issue.

Deductible from what? Taxes, the asset value used to calculate rent? What formula is being used to determine the rental value over time by the govt in the absence of a market?

Second sentence, I understand, I just think it's arbitrary/ not meaningful. I used to rent and have more stocks, now I have a house with relatively less stocks. Housing and the provision of it is an economic need, no need to separate it out imo.

 

[Gandhi]

I agree that's a smoother way to implement socialism but where I disagree is on the point concerning control of strategic industries. I still think it should be exercised in this market socialist manner instead of like the old command economy style but my point is the government shouldn't merely have ownership but also control.

Think of the fossil fuel industry, its an industry where the negative externalities potentially threaten life as we know it and market forces aren't enough to rein them in. In that case the government should exercise some control and direct those corporations to act in the long term interests of the planet instead of the short term interests of their shareholders.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

There are no real strategic industries imo, just people looking for barriers to be protected from competition.

But I get that's not your point. I would say that your view seems a tad binary, either the market works or the govt needs to control the industry, in your examples at least. Rather than nationalizing whole industries I think regulating them properly while leaving the market benefits would be a better option. Markets always require regulation, market failure is pervasive, and the trick is in finding the form of regulation that balances externalities while keeping market incentives intact.

I would much rather see higher oil taxes and renewable subsidies than total govt control, that could suck a ton of innovation away. The real issue is not govt control (I don't need to name the socialist economies that subsidized fuel, past an present), but political will. And I guess that is where the rubber meets the road, is it possible to have a market based democracy that does become subservient to corporate interests? In the USA the jury is still kind of out on that one.....

 

[Gandhi]

It's really simple, actually. If I'm giving my struggling high school buddy (or any other single individual) life advice, then yeah, I'll tell him to improve his education, increase his marketability, and get a better job, which will increase his income and standard of living. These things are 100% valid and true.

But when discussing social problems, this is 100% invalid. Why? Because it's literally impossible for everyone in society to be rich or to even have a middle-class life. By definition, if there's a middle class, there has to be a lower/working class. A class system relies on the bottom class to do onerous work, earn little, and live shitty.

The only way to truly get rid of this is to get rid of class system and make everyone equal. We know that that's not going to happen anytime soon so telling the poor to just work hard is just selling a lie. So yes, the entire conservative view on social class and upward social mobility is based on a lie.

I am sympathetic but at the same time the ceiling on income per person is limited by productivity per person. So if everyone worked twice as hard or found a way to be twice as productive, and work the same, income potential would double. That's the base theory of supply sideisms, before it gets laugher curve stupid, and it's correct.

Of course that says nothing about who gets what, the demand side of the equation, or the political ramifications of concentrating wealth for generations.

So there is room for "muh bootstraps" to increase the wealth of the nation, but without policy, that wealth will mostly go upwards.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Islam Imamate]

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

There are no real strategic industries imo, just people looking for barriers to be protected from competition.

But I get that's not your point. I would say that your view seems a tad binary, either the market works or the govt needs to control the industry, in your examples at least. Rather than nationalizing whole industries I think regulating them properly while leaving the market benefits would be a better option. Markets always require regulation, market failure is pervasive, and the trick is in finding the form of regulation that balances externalities while keeping market incentives intact.

I would much rather see higher oil taxes and renewable subsidies than total govt control, that could suck a ton of innovation away. The real issue is not govt control (I don't need to name the socialist economies that subsidized fuel, past an present), but political will. And I guess that is where the rubber meets the road, is it possible to have a market based democracy that does become subservient to corporate interests? In the USA the jury is still kind of out on that one.....

I see your point but I don't think that approach has worked thus far and even when it produces results I think it does so too slowly given the scale of the problem(though maybe I'm being a climate change alarmist here).

When I say government control I still mean in the context of a market socialist approach. So the state would own a controlling stake and use its representatives on the board to steer the corporation in the socially desired direction. In the case of oil corporations, that would mean setting a long term strategy that ultimately means the demise of the corporation given the fact that the fossil fuel industry basically has to go if we don't want to fuck the planet. I don't see how market forces would ever drive the industry in that direction despite how vital it is that the fossil fuel industry goes the way of the dinosaurs(I crack myself up).

 

[NoDak]

I see your point but I don't think that approach has worked thus far and even when it produces results I think it does so too slowly given the scale of the problem(though maybe I'm being a climate change alarmist here).

When I say government control I still mean in the context of a market socialist approach. So the state would own a controlling stake and use its representatives on the board to steer the corporation in the socially desired direction. In the case of oil corporations, that would mean setting a long term strategy that ultimately means the demise of the corporation given the fact that the fossil fuel industry basically has to go if we don't want to fuck the planet. I don't see how market forces would ever drive the industry in that direction despite how vital it is that the fossil fuel industry goes the way of the dinosaurs(I crack myself up).

The slow transition towards green tech isn't merely an issue that is born out of stubbornness and greed, it's just far more difficult to implement on a regional - nevermind global - scale than the loudest proponents tend to let on and I'm not even sure if they're aware of it given a lot of the hysterical rhetoric. By implement I don't mean in terms of government policy but the literal utilization. Peter Zeihan addressed this in his recent book.

Available greentechs just don’t cut it. There’s a profound mismatch between demand patterns for energy and what, when, and how much green systems can produce. It all comes down to the balance among the concepts of supply, demand, energy density, and reliability.

The vast majority of mankind’s carbon emissions come from two sources: oil-derived liquid transport fuels and the burning of fossil fuels for electricity production. This is how humanity has done things for good reason. These fuels are not simply relatively easy to source and reliable, but also anyone using them can choose when to use them because they are eminently easy to manipulate.

Production efforts can be ramped up and down as necessary. Above all, storage is simple. Gasoline, diesel, and propane can be kept almost indefinitely in a tank. Coal can literally be left in a pile on the ground. That’s not the case for greentech. A heavy list of factors limit its application.

Latitude. Any zones north of about 42 degrees north latitude — just above Chicago — (or south of 42 degrees south latitude) have too much seasonal variation to enable solar to generate appreciable power half the year. Solar can be brilliant in Phoenix or Santiago, but it is idiotic in Stockholm or Toronto.

Climate. Africa’s Gulf of Guinea region or southern China seem to have good solar potential — they are nowhere near 42 degrees north — until you realize that the regions’ often-rampant humidity creates a persistent solar-impinging haze and clouds, landing them with some of the world’s lowest solar radiation ratings.

Intermittency. Even in places with good solar potential, clouds, mist, dust and such often impair power generation on a minute-by-minute basis. Each time local generation proves insufficient, power surges and brownouts ripple across the electricity-distribution system as some areas get too much power and others not enough. Modifying the U.S. grid so it can handle the ebb and flow of a high-greentech-powered system would run a cool $750 billion. And that assumes there’s enough power coming in from somewhere.

In the case of larger-scale disruption — say an entire city being under cloud cover — another, more traditional source of power generation needs to be tapped to keep electricity flowing. And of course all throughout the history of humanity, the sun has never once shone at night — so you’ll be needing that backup for half the day on average even if everything else is perfect.

Supply/Demand mismatch. Peak daily demand for electricity is between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m., but peak solar supply lies between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. The lack of match-up means that even if nameplate solar generating capacity could handle all demand, the inability to generate power when it is needed forces utilities to operate carbon-burning power generation anyway. Since a coal plant takes 24 (or more) hours to ramp up or down, even large-scale greentech buildouts translate into only negligible reductions in net GHG emissions.

Strategic competition. The best places for solar on the planet are in the Saharan and Arabian Deserts and the Persian highlands. The best place for wind is Siberia. All areas where petroleum is king.

Density. Solar panels take up a great deal of space, particularly if they are not near the equator and must be slanted and separated to capture angled sunlight. Generating 150MW of power from a natural gas-burning facility in the Phoenix area only takes 17 acres of land. Once you take into effect things like panel spacing and angle, getting the same draw from solar would require almost five thousand — and that in the U.S. city with the highest solar potential.

Transmission. There certainly are places where the wind is more reliable (Western Iowa, the North Sea, Western Texas come to mind) or where solar radiation is reliably high (the American High Plains, Tibet and the Australian Outback). But this is not the norm. Only 10 to 20 percent of the Earth’s surface is ideal for either wind or solar power. Deepening the problem is that most of such areas have shockingly low population densities. Transmitting such green power to cities typically requires so much more infrastructure and related maintenance that transmission costs are triple more traditional carbon-based fuels.

Germany is the poster child for the limitations of a fast-paced buildout with today’s less-than-stellar greentechs. The country’s Energiewende program is designed to move the country fully away from carbon-based fuels by 2050, and as part of the program the country has installed some 40 gigawatts of solar-generating capacity, technically enough to generate nearly all its normal electricity requirements.

However, between Germany’s high latitude and persistent cloud cover, the sun rarely shines. All those panels generate but 6 percent of the country’s electricity. For public concern reasons the country is shutting down its nuclear power program, and for geopolitical reasons the country is sidelining its natgas-burning power plants. That only leaves wind (which limited by siting concerns is pretty much maxed out already) … and coal.

 

[Gandhi]

I see your point but I don't think that approach has worked thus far and even when it produces results I think it does so too slowly given the scale of the problem(though maybe I'm being a climate change alarmist here).

When I say government control I still mean in the context of a market socialist approach. So the state would own a controlling stake and use its representatives on the board to steer the corporation in the socially desired direction. In the case of oil corporations, that would mean setting a long term strategy that ultimately means the demise of the corporation given the fact that the fossil fuel industry basically has to go if we don't want to fuck the planet. I don't see how market forces would ever drive the industry in that direction despite how vital it is that the fossil fuel industry goes the way of the dinosaurs(I crack myself up).

I don't think u r being alarmist, the concern is justified imo.

The problem is we are saying that in order for the govt to effectively regulate, it has to essentially "take over" corporations to compel them to behave. I think govts are horrible at running business because they don't listen to the profit motive and fall prey to many other interests. There is also the issue of competition and new threats. Frankly if govt can't even pass / enforce a set of reasonable incentives to curb global warming I don't know why they could run a corp well, especially with all the ambiguities they would now face. But you are right, market forces, absent regulations to properly measure and attribute costs/benefits won't do anything. Although govts faced with civilians wanting to heat their homes, keep employment high, have cheap fuel, etc. have not been effective actors either.

But my real issue is I am not sure what the govt owned solution is. Has Norway stopped its oil industry from producing as much in response to this issue? It seems to me that their commitments to things like Kyoto are quite out of sync with their own oil industry. The link below (with my bolds) is a good example of the tension here, where Norway wants to meet its commitments internally while it continues to sell oil to the rest of the world.

That is not to say that NW is not leaps and bounds ahead of the USA, but I think that has more to agreeing to an international framework than owning the oil industry.

https://www.sei.org/publications/norwegian-oil-production-and-keeping-global-warming-well-below-2c/

As part of the Paris Agreement, world leaders agreed to work to keep global warming “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, aiming to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change. This requires rapid and sustained action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet even as countries seek to reduce fossil fuel consumption to reduce emissions, investment in fossil fuel production is expected to grow.

The divide between climate goals and fossil fuel-sector investment is particularly evident in Norway. The country’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) under the Paris Agreement establishes a target of reducing domestic emissions by at least 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and a “binding goal” of becoming a carbon-neutral “low emission society” by 2050. However, Norway also expects to continue producing significant volumes of oil and gas for decades.

The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) has stated that it will be possible to “maintain production from the [petroleum] sector at a very high level for decades to come”. Indeed, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and NPD have projected only a slight decline in oil and gas production through 2040.

Fossil fuel production now accounts for over a quarter of Norway’s domestic GHG emissions. Those emissions are covered by the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), so there are ways to offset continued emissions through deeper reductions elsewhere in the EU. Still, meeting Norway’s long-term goal of becoming a low-emission society will require steep emission reductions in the sector – either through reduced production or by lowering the emissions intensity of production.

Furthermore, fossil fuels produced in Norway and exported to other countries will still contribute to global GHG emissions when combusted. Several analyses have shown that when a country increases its oil production, the increase is not fully offset by reduced production elsewhere – and when global oil production increases, so do oil consumption and overall CO2 emissions.

 

[Gandhi]

The slow transition towards green tech isn't merely an issue that is born out of stubbornness and greed, it's just far more difficult to implement on a regional - nevermind global - scale than the loudest proponents tend to let on and I'm not even sure if they're aware of it given a lot of the hysterical rhetoric. By implement I don't mean in terms of government policy but the literal utilization. Peter Zeihan addressed this in his recent book.

Available greentechs just don’t cut it. There’s a profound mismatch between demand patterns for energy and what, when, and how much green systems can produce. It all comes down to the balance among the concepts of supply, demand, energy density, and reliability.

The vast majority of mankind’s carbon emissions come from two sources: oil-derived liquid transport fuels and the burning of fossil fuels for electricity production. This is how humanity has done things for good reason. These fuels are not simply relatively easy to source and reliable, but also anyone using them can choose when to use them because they are eminently easy to manipulate.

Production efforts can be ramped up and down as necessary. Above all, storage is simple. Gasoline, diesel, and propane can be kept almost indefinitely in a tank. Coal can literally be left in a pile on the ground. That’s not the case for greentech. A heavy list of factors limit its application.

Latitude. Any zones north of about 42 degrees north latitude — just above Chicago — (or south of 42 degrees south latitude) have too much seasonal variation to enable solar to generate appreciable power half the year. Solar can be brilliant in Phoenix or Santiago, but it is idiotic in Stockholm or Toronto.

Climate. Africa’s Gulf of Guinea region or southern China seem to have good solar potential — they are nowhere near 42 degrees north — until you realize that the regions’ often-rampant humidity creates a persistent solar-impinging haze and clouds, landing them with some of the world’s lowest solar radiation ratings.

Intermittency. Even in places with good solar potential, clouds, mist, dust and such often impair power generation on a minute-by-minute basis. Each time local generation proves insufficient, power surges and brownouts ripple across the electricity-distribution system as some areas get too much power and others not enough. Modifying the U.S. grid so it can handle the ebb and flow of a high-greentech-powered system would run a cool $750 billion. And that assumes there’s enough power coming in from somewhere.

In the case of larger-scale disruption — say an entire city being under cloud cover — another, more traditional source of power generation needs to be tapped to keep electricity flowing. And of course all throughout the history of humanity, the sun has never once shone at night — so you’ll be needing that backup for half the day on average even if everything else is perfect.

Supply/Demand mismatch. Peak daily demand for electricity is between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m., but peak solar supply lies between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. The lack of match-up means that even if nameplate solar generating capacity could handle all demand, the inability to generate power when it is needed forces utilities to operate carbon-burning power generation anyway. Since a coal plant takes 24 (or more) hours to ramp up or down, even large-scale greentech buildouts translate into only negligible reductions in net GHG emissions.

Strategic competition. The best places for solar on the planet are in the Saharan and Arabian Deserts and the Persian highlands. The best place for wind is Siberia. All areas where petroleum is king.

Density. Solar panels take up a great deal of space, particularly if they are not near the equator and must be slanted and separated to capture angled sunlight. Generating 150MW of power from a natural gas-burning facility in the Phoenix area only takes 17 acres of land. Once you take into effect things like panel spacing and angle, getting the same draw from solar would require almost five thousand — and that in the U.S. city with the highest solar potential.

Transmission. There certainly are places where the wind is more reliable (Western Iowa, the North Sea, Western Texas come to mind) or where solar radiation is reliably high (the American High Plains, Tibet and the Australian Outback). But this is not the norm. Only 10 to 20 percent of the Earth’s surface is ideal for either wind or solar power. Deepening the problem is that most of such areas have shockingly low population densities. Transmitting such green power to cities typically requires so much more infrastructure and related maintenance that transmission costs are triple more traditional carbon-based fuels.

Germany is the poster child for the limitations of a fast-paced buildout with today’s less-than-stellar greentechs. The country’s Energiewende program is designed to move the country fully away from carbon-based fuels by 2050, and as part of the program the country has installed some 40 gigawatts of solar-generating capacity, technically enough to generate nearly all its normal electricity requirements.

However, between Germany’s high latitude and persistent cloud cover, the sun rarely shines. All those panels generate but 6 percent of the country’s electricity. For public concern reasons the country is shutting down its nuclear power program, and for geopolitical reasons the country is sidelining its natgas-burning power plants. That only leaves wind (which limited by siting concerns is pretty much maxed out already) … and coal.

I may be saying something controversial but we should be looking a nuclear again...

 

[Gandhi]

Delete

 

[Trotsky]

It's really simple, actually. If I'm giving my struggling high school buddy (or any other single individual) life advice, then yeah, I'll tell him to improve his education, increase his marketability, and get a better job, which will increase his income and standard of living. These things are 100% valid and true.

But when discussing social problems, this is 100% invalid. Why? Because it's literally impossible for everyone in society to be rich or to even have a middle-class life. By definition, if there's a middle class, there has to be a lower/working class. A class system relies on the bottom class to do onerous work, earn little, and live shitty.

The only way to truly get rid of this is to get rid of class system and make everyone equal. We know that that's not going to happen anytime soon so telling the poor to just work hard is just selling a lie. So yes, the entire conservative view on social class and upward social mobility is based on a lie.

Unrelated to whoever you're responding to, one of my biggest pet peeves is when people use the "well, get a better job, go to college, learn a trade" when clerical-type workers lobby for higher wages.

Like, are those people incapable of thinking how horrible it would be for everyone if all fast food workers suddenly went to college or trade school? Debt would skyrocket, the price of goods and services would skyrocket as the efficiency of their distribution plummeted with a workforce that is both underpopulated and in constant flux, the white collar job market would become endlessly saturated, and the economy would grind to a halt - all because a bunch of dip shit wannabe armchair economists wanted to condescend about workers whose labor their consumption and convenience depends on, instead of submitting that they are humans and deserve a dignified existence.

 

[InternetHero]

Punchline: a true Republican government. Lol. Not biased at all. What is a "true" republican government?

First off, do you agree that balance between equality and freedom are desirable? That having a North Korea or a Somalia is a bad idea if we follow the left or right too far?

If we can agree to that, I can talk about what a true republican government is in my views of philosophy. If not, I would just be wasting your time.