Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:26 pm Yea, especially when you consider that I’m opting only for the high tech carbon fiber ski poles, so as to avoid any of them saying that other word.

They’re also consistently higher than Merica on metrics like, happiness, quality of life, life expectancy, etc.

they live an average of 4 years longer, and don’t even have to worry about whether a doctor’s visit will land them in bankruptcy court.

And Norwegian taxes go more toward things that actually benefit Norwegian people, rather than going toward warmongering and handouts to billionaires.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:25 pm
I think this gets to the heart of our disagreements. We value different things.

You value a higher minimum standard of living for the immediate future

more than innovation and productivity.

I'm the opposite with the idea it's going to be better for the greatest number of people in the long run.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:27 pm Although you do seem usually to want to stick it to the rich moreso than actually helping the poor... But that might just be a result of only going meme-deep into things

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:25 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:26 pm Yea, especially when you consider that I’m opting only for the high tech carbon fiber ski poles, so as to avoid any of them saying that other word.

They’re also consistently higher than Merica on metrics like, happiness, quality of life, life expectancy, etc.

they live an average of 4 years longer, and don’t even have to worry about whether a doctor’s visit will land them in bankruptcy court.

And Norwegian taxes go more toward things that actually benefit Norwegian people, rather than going toward warmongering and handouts to billionaires.

I think this gets to the heart of our disagreements. We value different things.

You value a higher minimum standard of living for the immediate future more than innovation and productivity. I'm the opposite with the idea it's going to be better for the greatest number of people in the long run.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:27 pm Although you do seem usually to want to stick it to the rich moreso than actually helping the poor... But that might just be a result of only going meme-deep into things

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:51 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:25 pm

I think this gets to the heart of our disagreements. We value different things.

You value a higher minimum standard of living for the immediate future

Yes please! You say that like it’s a bad thing.

more than innovation and productivity.

Do you really see no incentive to innovate or produce, other than the potential to generate monetary wealth?

That’s such a cynical thought - that life is only transactional, and there’s no desire to improve anything for anyone unless there’s some golden calf involved.

Serious question: how did Homo sapiens ever learn to hunt or gather or start a fire or build a shelter or use tools? With no monetary system back then, where’s the incentive to innovate or produce?

I'm the opposite with the idea it's going to be better for the greatest number of people in the long run.

How?

Specifically, how does a system that values little more than the individual hoarding of wealth by the greediest, to the detriment of so many others? and particularly in the context of climate change - how does it help any sort of majority in the long run to destroy Mother Earth?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:57 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:27 pm Although you do seem usually to want to stick it to the rich moreso than actually helping the poor... But that might just be a result of only going meme-deep into things

I don’t want to stick it to the rich any more than the rich want to stick it to the poor. If you’d like to share some example of a true “self-made billionaire,” please do, cuz otherwise it seems like folks only get that rich from the merciless exploitation of workers and public resources. (ETA or from inheritance from someone who did the same)

But please. Let’s go further than meme deep.

Has it occurred to you that pretty much all of us (who grew up in the Western Hemisphere, at least) grew up within a culture of capitalist propaganda every step of the way? How else have we managed to normalize greed and take a giant dump on the golden rule?

Forgive me if I’ve got a tone. This can all be kinda upsetting for me. Nonetheless, I appreciate your willingness to discuss.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:49 pm People don't have to do business with polluters. If everyone is colluding in polluting that's where the Government does have a role. I have no problem with Government having some role, and providing a safety net and a means for people to rise up from poverty. But providing that for so many people is expensive and at a point does disincentive productivity, so that minimum standard of living (which has gone WAY up in America under Capitalism, which you seem to not notice) I just think doesn't need to be forced up based on history.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:49 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:51 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:25 pm


Yes please! You say that like it’s a bad thing.

It's not a bad thing. Both of the things we value are good things, I just value one more than the other, as you seem to as well, just flipped around.

more than innovation and productivity.

Do you really see no incentive to innovate or produce, other than the potential to generate monetary wealth?

That’s such a cynical thought - that life is only transactional, and there’s no desire to improve anything for anyone unless there’s some golden calf involved.

Serious question: how did Homo sapiens ever learn to hunt or gather or start a fire or build a shelter or use tools? With no monetary system back then, where’s the incentive to innovate or produce?

Again, you're speaking in absolutes, which according to Obi-wan makes you a Sith. People are by nature competitive, both internally and externally. Accomplishments give us a squirt of dopamine, and that's addictive. So there's still incentive to innovate and produce no matter what.

Capitalism utilizes this, whereas Socialism, to the extent you seem to push it, pushes back against those instincts. And as Ian Malcom said, nature finds a way. You better someone by scheming instead of through working harder and smarter than the other guy. America has accomplished an insane amount in terms of innovation for such a young country, and I would credit a great deal of that to being so Capitalistic. It also helps competitively attract those innovators from other countries since they can reap more rewards.

I'm the opposite with the idea it's going to be better for the greatest number of people in the long run.

How?

Specifically, how does a system that values little more than the individual hoarding of wealth by the greediest, to the detriment of so many others? and particularly in the context of climate change - how does it help any sort of majority in the long run to destroy Mother Earth?

The system does not value that at all. People don't have to do business with polluters. If everyone is colluding in polluting that's where the Government does have a role. I have no problem with Government having some role, and providing a safety net and a means for people to rise up from poverty. But providing that for so many people is expensive and at a point does disincentive productivity, so that minimum standard of living (which has gone WAY up in America under Capitalism, which you seem to not notice) I just think doesn't need to be forced up based on history.