News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Philosophy / Re: What would the apocalypse ...
Last post by Asmodean - Today at 05:59:02 PM
Yeah, but that's Russia. As I said in that other thread, I don't think that the current situation is even the beginning of The End.

I'm trying for a broader perspective here. The world has to end somehow, does it not?
#2
Philosophy / Re: What would the apocalypse ...
Last post by Old Seer - Today at 03:13:19 PM
Putin is interested more-so in tactical (battlefield)nuclear devises rather then an international war such as the US Davey Crockett system. The object is to clear a battlefield with one swat rather then bombardments with conventional artillery. I,m thinking NATO will have to blink on this one.

https://youtu.be/eiM-RzPHyGs
#3
Philosophy / Re: Accidents and Obligations
Last post by Asmodean - Today at 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 25, 2022, 01:04:09 PMBut the reality is that the mega-rich own stock in companies. It is relatively easy for them to sell a few shares to pay taxes. Elon Musk did that recently. One billion dollar houses are not the norm.
Ah, but here is the catch, falling share prices due to major insider sales notwithstanding; you can only sell so much before you lose your controlling interest. Long before that approaches, you are increasingly more likely to take resources (Profit, if you're lucky) out of the company in order to pay that tax. Resources that would otherwise not have been taken out. thereby, you practically plunder the company - or rather, pass on the cost down the line, usually all the way to the consumer. My house analogy is not a bad one. Let us revisit it;

You have houses worth that billion dollars we discussed. You rent them out. The government comes along and wants 20 million from you because you just own too damned much. Every year they want it. You pay the twenty mil, but now you are kinda' out of pocket - in debt, likely as not - so... You adjust the rent to bring it back in.

Again, I'll long-form a other response when I'm in a position to do so. There is a lot to respond to, though I think we are approaching the agree-to-disagree point.

P.S; just because The Asmo is an impatient Asmo and cannot resist;
Quote from: Tom62 on September 24, 2022, 04:44:08 PM2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
The most important part here is; don't have children until you can be reasonably assured of your capability to support them - even if "shit" "happens." Things like life insurance can go a long way, so can pre-made agreements in case of a breakup.

I think this point can be summed up in the wise words of every flight attendant like... Ever; "Put your own mask on before you try to help someone else." That is, make sure that you can take care of yourself before you try to take care of someone else. If you can't - you simply. Will. Not. Do. It. Well - be it a child or a spouse or a pet hamster.
#4
Philosophy / What would the apocalypse look...
Last post by Asmodean - Today at 10:31:05 AM
So I kinda' got inspired by that other apocalypse thread. There is more to talk about here, and I think this deserves a separate discussion;

From the point of view of a "survivor," what would the apocalypse look like, after the dust has settled and the raging zombie hordes have passed? For the sake of this thought experiment, let us assume a global collapse of civilization.

I think the potentially-nuclear dust would settle on people surviving any way they can - some in small groups bound by loyalty (Such as families, friends or other such units) others on their own, third still in groups bound by access to certain resources and the defence thereof. The stronger would take from the weaker, potentially growing in numbers and strength and before long, I expect pseudo-feudal, pseudo-despotic sort of systems to emerge, with "strongmen" ruling their "kingdoms," feuding, getting swallowed up, splitting apart and so forth.

I suspect for a survivor, or someone born into that world, life would likely be a short, yet brutal affair - even past the point where the access to resources such as electricity, fuel and food stabilises through production and its trade or conquest.
#5
Media / Re: The Rings of Power
Last post by Asmodean - Today at 10:02:40 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on September 24, 2022, 06:12:29 PMDespite what I was told by a fellow fan, the last episode continues the downward trajectory for the series. Why is numenor so weak? Why aren't the elves any different from men? This all just fees wrong. Not just not good. Wrong.
Why is Sauron basically a worse Aragorn from the movies? Why is wise Galadriel an insufferable bint? Why do the Numenorians need her to explain to them that one way of killing things with the sword is to stab with the damned thing? I have zero sword training, and that is what I would try and do. How is agility preferable to strength in a sword fight? Again, looking back at the movies, both Aragorn and Boromir, among others, did indeed brute force their ways through Ork and Uruk-Hai alike. (Using movies rather than books as reference because fights/duels are vastly different on paper than they are live-action)

Eh, well... I am caught up now, and I agree. Things are getting worse through an increase in nonsense, plot armour and the use of McGuffins. Also, don't get me started on them "wolves." Those things were not even canine! And the Hobbits... The fucking hobbits! Definitely don't get me started on those.
#6
Philosophy / Re: the coming apocalypse
Last post by Asmodean - Today at 09:56:10 AM
Hmm... I don't think this is it.

The West™ is collapsing a bit, but "it" also sees it and tries to prevent it. It may succeed yet. Russia is... Dangerous, but that's Russia. Will they launch the nukes? Perhaps. Will that be the end of civilization? Doubtful.

The Rich™ likely have better odds of making it well enough through the "end times," but that too is sort-of business as usual, and applies to rich nations as well as individuals. That's not to say that the times won't be hard - very hard, in fact, but not as hard as they are likely to be in countries that rely on outside help, as I suspect that is one of the first things to stop when the shit hits the fan in them wealthier parts of the world.

That said, and to reiterate, I do not think this is it - or even the beginning of it.
#7
Philosophy / Re: Accidents and Obligations
Last post by billy rubin - September 25, 2022, 11:22:18 PM
Quote from: Anne D. on September 25, 2022, 08:39:41 PMNot sure how we'd get to this "ideal" society where no companies were privately owned and all were somehow collectively run by workers without a whole lot of bloodletting and much more human misery than we have now. It also sounds completely unworkable. I have worked in a large institution where most decisions were made by committee--in reality, that meant no decisions were made. And as Asmo points out (God--that is so painful to type, pigs are flying and hell is freezing over), companies don't grow on trees. What incentive would there be for anyone to create anything new?

What governmental structure are you envisioning? It's sounding like Soviet-style "communism," which is just a flavor of autocracy. Institutions don't run themselves, and neither do nations. In the absence of strong democratic processes and traditions to prevent it, a "strong man" always steps in.

I agree with you, billy rubin, that the U.S. is in dire straits right now, but I think there are a lot of options for fixing it short of blowing up the entire democratic experiment--which I don't think fixes anything. Let's not throw up our hands just yet.

i think we're in for the bloodletting, anne. there was a strong stable government in france right up to the day they stormed the bastille.

that doesn't mean i recommend it. i just think we're headed in that direction.

regardiing committees, there are lots of companies that are run as collectives. sioux honey corporation, various trucking companies, and so on. the differences are that the employees are the owners, and they have a stake in the organizaation larger than whatever an owner considers appropriate to trickle down to them.

i dont have any plans. i dont see my point of view as likely either. i just think it would be an improvement over what we have now.
#8
Philosophy / Re: Accidents and Obligations
Last post by Anne D. - September 25, 2022, 08:39:41 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on September 24, 2022, 09:02:20 PM
QuoteAnd yet without it, the anchor chain company does not exist. It never even started, in fact. Companies don't grow on trees. Every single one with a modicum of success started with someone doing his own thing. Making a buck, as it were. It's his thing, no matter how many people he hires and fires over the years. It's his until he dies, sells it (therein goes public/partly sells it) or goes bust. In either of those cases, it then belongs to whoever bought it - be it a worker's union or a hedge fund.

i would skip the individual ownership stage and go right to worker's ownership. without an owner to protect against, there isnt even a need to have a union.

QuotePoint is, in a market economy . . .

i would eliminate a market economy.

QuoteKill them?

i would offer them a job in the warehouse, asmo. but as for killing them, i'm afraid we're headed in that direction.

at some point in economic exploitation, the masses of the exploited always end up executing their exploiters. i would like to move beyond that point without killing anybody, but as i see it we are in late-stage capitalism, where the masses are slowly discovering that they are not actually benefitting from the system that they are making possible. if you strip the CEO of a corporation naked, he is indistinguishable from the poorest of his employees. all his advantages accrue from things written on pieces of paper. eliminate the paper, and you can assess his true contribution.
. . .

at any rate, sooner or later revolutions happen.

Not sure how we'd get to this "ideal" society where no companies were privately owned and all were somehow collectively run by workers without a whole lot of bloodletting and much more human misery than we have now. It also sounds completely unworkable. I have worked in a large institution where most decisions were made by committee--in reality, that meant no decisions were made. And as Asmo points out (God--that is so painful to type, pigs are flying and hell is freezing over), companies don't grow on trees. What incentive would there be for anyone to create anything new?

What governmental structure are you envisioning? It's sounding like Soviet-style "communism," which is just a flavor of autocracy. Institutions don't run themselves, and neither do nations. In the absence of strong democratic processes and traditions to prevent it, a "strong man" always steps in.

I agree with you, billy rubin, that the U.S. is in dire straits right now, but I think there are a lot of options for fixing it short of blowing up the entire democratic experiment--which I don't think fixes anything. Let's not throw up our hands just yet.
#9
Philosophy / Re: the coming apocalypse
Last post by Old Seer - September 25, 2022, 01:26:35 PM
From what and how I understand things you'd be correct.
#10
Philosophy / Re: Accidents and Obligations
Last post by Ecurb Noselrub - September 25, 2022, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on September 22, 2022, 08:04:02 PMYou own a house worth one billion dollars. The housing bubble be a-bubbling, and the value of your house increases by 5% a year. 5% of a billion is five million. Let us assume a ten percent "income" tax. You now owe the government 500000. Yes, you have a billion dollar house. Do you have 500000 without needing to "plunder" said house for it?


But the reality is that the mega-rich own stock in companies. It is relatively easy for them to sell a few shares to pay taxes. Elon Musk did that recently. One billion dollar houses are not the norm.