Politics Thread!

[F-ZeroOne]

He reportedly also wants to move the carriers "island" - thats the sticky-up bit that serves as the control centre - forwards so that, and I swear I am not making this up, the carriers look more like WWII era carriers.

Even worse, more like post-WWI, because they looked more menacing or whatever. Letting someone with crappy taste like the one with the golden toilets decide how your military gear looks like is an obviously insane idea.

For the sake of pedantry, during the development of aircraft carriers a number of different ideas were tried - a Japanese one tried having the island on the "other" side of the deck (aviators hated it), there were a couple which had two flight decks, one under the other, and some with no island at all. Even today, you have things like the "Queen Elizabeth" class which have two islands (and for the record Mr. President are actually newer than the majority of the current US carrier fleet). But yes, Trump clearly has no idea that its not as simple as picking the island up and plonking it down somewhere else like a Lego set.

[KlaxonCow]

Reform UK would cut about £50bn from the benefits bill and scrap the disability payments system, Pip, if it comes in to government, the party will announce next week.

Are there enough workers to vote for this, or are bennie scroungers now the biggest voting block?

Ironically enough, to get our answer, we only need look at Farage's constituency.

Because Clacton has the highest PIP new-claim rates in all of England and Wales, estimated to be around 1 in 5 of their population.

So even amongst the most likely highest population of "bennie scroungers" - as there's no logical reason to expect Clacton's disability rate to naturally be so far above the UK average, that one has to suspect there's quite a number amongst this poor and uneducated constituency of Christmas-voting turkeys who genuinely are the lazy "bennie scroungers" - then 20% does not come close to representing a majority.

Clacton also has the honour of having the lowest educational attainment in the whole of the UK. As Trump once had it: "I love the uneducated" because they are, indeed, so easily manipulated into voting against their own interests by a few campfire ghost stories about "the invasion of the brown people".

Useful idiots.

While it's actually been software, robots and AI that have been "stealing all the jobs" for decades now, as the behest of billionaires, who're over-enthusiastically spunking trillions at the potential of AI to permanently end their dependence on the poor to be their work slaves. And your children will never afford their own home, as that same class of billionaire is using land and property as investment vehicles, out-competing your children to the goal of any semblance of settled future security and "tithing" the peasant serfs, with rents, in perpetual servitude. "You will own nothing and you WILL be happy".

Again, I ask you, which is most likely?

That a few dozen immigrants on small boats have a greater economic impact on the UK, than the billionaires whose own personal wealth is literally 23% of the economy unto itself in the UK (and closer to 50% worldwide) and who actually own and run the investment markets, the big businesses, the banks, etc. that directly fuel the economy?

Who do you really think has a greater impact on your relative poverty? Fellow poor people from other countries trying to better their lives in the UK, or the rich cunts who actually run the banks, the corporations, the markets and own all the politicians with bribes, who're hell-bent on hoarding all the fucking money to themselves and who are creaming their pants at the thought of AI finally ending their dependence on requiring poor people to do all the actual work.

Hmm, I wonder which of these two forces has the greater effect on the economy? Literally the people who actually run the economy, all being corrupt greedy cunts, stealing all the money to themselves. Or a hotel with 12 brown people in it, who came over here with fuck all possessions or money (as the people smugglers conned every last penny out of them for the crossing),who're getting their rooms paid for by HMRC, while we await the courts to deport them again.

Like, use your fucking brains, you idiots.

20 brown people on a small boat is not breaking the NHS and the UK economy single-handedly "by sheer force of numbers" when this is a country of 70 fucking million people... at least, not without the assistance of rich-cunt Tories deliberately running the NHS and public services into the ground for decades, in the hopes that they can finally break the system and replace it with extortionate American-style private healthcare - please note carefully: ACTUAL REFORM UK POLICY - so they can profit from bankrupting the ill and the dying.

[snaff]

That a few dozen immigrants on small boats have a greater economic impact on the UK, than the billionaires whose own personal wealth is literally 23% of the economy unto itself in the UK (and closer to 50% worldwide) and who actually own and run the investment markets, the big businesses, the banks, etc. that directly fuel the economy?

Who do you really think has a greater impact on your relative poverty? Fellow poor people from other countries trying to better their lives in the UK, or the rich cunts who actually run the banks, the corporations, the markets and own all the politicians with bribes, who're hell-bent on hoarding all the fucking money to themselves and who are creaming their pants at the thought of AI finally ending their dependence on requiring poor people to do all the actual work.

Hmm, I wonder which of these two forces has the greater effect on the economy? Literally the people who actually run the economy, all being corrupt greedy cunts, stealing all the money to themselves. Or a hotel with 12 brown people in it, who came over here with fuck all possessions or money (as the people smugglers conned every last penny out of them for the crossing),who're getting their rooms paid for by HMRC, while we await the courts to deport them again.

Inequality is not caused by 'billionaires'. It was caused by Gordon Brown, George Osborne and the boomers.

1997 house prices 3x wages. Brown want boomer votes. Remove lending limits from banks. House price number go up. Boomer rich, wealth transfer from young, inequality go up. House price 10x wages.

Inevitable crash, money printing. Osborne want boomer votes. Help to buy scam. Help sellers. House price number go up. Boomer rich, inequality go up.

Debt expansion, money printing, HPI, inequality, general inflation.

No 'billionaries' in funny hats required.

[KlaxonCow]

There's a fundamental problem with your theory, mate.

Talk to a Canadian. Vancouver house prices are through the roof. Talk to an Australian. Sydney house prices are through the roof.

Spain, Portugal, Ireland and the Netherlands have all seen spiking housing and rental costs. America is also becoming overrun with corporate landlords.

You're wearing parochial blinkers and are only seeing the local situation, blaming local influences. But this trend really is worldwide and spreading to more countries all the time.

But you're not wrong to point out that Gordon Brown and George Osborne didn't help the situation. But who do you think were their paymasters? Whose orders do you think they were carrying out? And, moving from the local to the global situation, who has big influence to be the paymasters and order-givers to ALL of the political leaders of the world?

Brown and Osborne were open about it - they were "business friendly". Brown had his "fiscal rules" - which every chancellor thereafter has been keen to point out that they also abide by the "fiscal rules" - to please the billionaires that New Labour was not "socialist" anymore, but are signalling that they have buy-in on the billionaire-pleasing playbook.

Think bigger. Be less parochial. What's the common denominator here? Brown and Osborne were technically on opposite sides of the aisle - yet when it comes to pandering to businesses and billionaires, they're singing from the same hymn sheet. As are politicians all over the Western World.

Elon Musk doesn't really have literally $44 billion sitting in this bank account to buy Twitter. What billionaires do is own valuable assets and then they get bank loans against those assets, then the passive income on those assets pays off the loan. When you're that rich, money is just "invented" for you when you need it. It's all backed by valuable assets - such as, ooh, property, as "bricks and mortar" is vastly better now than the traditional assets like gold or orange juice futures.

Particularly in an environment that has, indeed, been rigged for house prices to rise and rise and never come back down. In an environment where lending limits have, indeed, been removed. This is all just perfect for billionaires, backing up the bank loans they live off - which now have no limits - with the ever-increasing property prices that are the assets that they back up all these loans against.

As the old saying goes: "It's the economy, stupid".

[snaff]

There's a fundamental problem with your theory, mate.

Talk to a Canadian. Vancouver house prices are through the roof. Talk to an Australian. Sydney house prices are through the roof.

Spain, Portugal, Ireland and the Netherlands have all seen spiking housing and rental costs. America is also becoming overrun with corporate landlords.

You're wearing parochial blinkers and are only seeing the local situation, blaming local influences. But this trend really is worldwide and spreading to more countries all the time.

But you're not wrong to point out that Gordon Brown and George Osborne didn't help the situation. But who do you think were their paymasters? Whose orders do you think they were carrying out? And, moving from the local to the global situation, who has big influence to be the paymasters and order-givers to ALL of the political leaders of the world?

Brown and Osborne were open about it - they were "business friendly". Brown had his "fiscal rules" - which every chancellor thereafter has been keen to point out that they also abide by the "fiscal rules" - to please the billionaires that New Labour was not "socialist" anymore, but are signalling that they have buy-in on the billionaire-pleasing playbook.

Think bigger. Be less parochial. What's the common denominator here? Brown and Osborne were technically on opposite sides of the aisle - yet when it comes to pandering to businesses and billionaires, they're singing from the same hymn sheet. As are politicians all over the Western World.

Elon Musk doesn't really have literally $44 billion sitting in this bank account to buy Twitter. What billionaires do is own valuable assets and then they get bank loans against those assets, then the passive income on those assets pays off the loan. When you're that rich, money is just "invented" for you when you need it. It's all backed by valuable assets - such as, ooh, property, as "bricks and mortar" is vastly better now than the traditional assets like gold or orange juice futures.

Particularly in an environment that has, indeed, been rigged for house prices to rise and rise and never come back down. In an environment where lending limits have, indeed, been removed. This is all just perfect for billionaires, backing up the bank loans they live off - which now have no limits - with the ever-increasing property prices that are the assets that they back up all these loans against.

As the old saying goes: "It's the economy, stupid".

Of course multiple countries did it, they are taking 'advantage' of the same global 1980-2020 disinflation cycle. Which you would know if you read a book rather than listening to monkey man on the youtubes. Notice plenty of countries also didn't do it.

Plus if you bothered to figure out how things actually work you would get wealthy. Monkey man will just tell you divisive bullshit about all your problems being someone else's fault that makes you feel good while keeping you poor.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Being unable to recognise that not everyone could or would take advantage of the system and other people, or knowing and not caring, is an antisocial personality disorder.
Blaming those who could, would, and did is a legitimate strategy. Blaming the bludger stereotype who couldn't is pointless; it's literally blaming people for taking advantage of the system they have while excusing other people for taking advantage of the system they have. Those who wouldn't understand this and blame the correct group.

If the growing inequality isn't coming for you then the growing mob of those affected by it are.

[KlaxonCow]

So, your grand rebuttal to the arguments is "monkey man" and "go read a book"?

I've posted on this forum plenty. I think folks can make their own judgements on whether, as you contend, I'm functionally illiterate. I don't think I need to waste one iota of breath appealing that particular accusation.

Plus if you bothered to figure out how things actually work you would get wealthy.

But that's the whole point you're missing. That's the root of the whole entire problem.

You yourself mentioned "money printing". Good, let's work from that.

What's wrong with printing money?

In the naive view, you can just print enough money to give everyone a million quid for free. Roughly 70 million people in the country. Print £70 trillion quid and then just give everyone a million quid each.

You've correctly identified that this is a very bad idea and doesn't work. But why doesn't it work?

Well, because if you just increase the money supply, without proportionally increasing the resources that all that money abstractly represents, then all you are doing is de-valuing the currency itself.

Let's create a simple "economy" to get the underlying mathematical point across. You've got 100 things and you create a new currency to buy and sell those things. The money supply is 100 units. So 100 units buys 100 things. Each thing is worth one unit.

Now, let's print some money. We've going to inflate the money supply so now there's 1000 units of money, but it still just represents 100 things. So all we've really done is de-valued the currency - created inflation - and now each thing is worth ten units. Let's get crazy and print more money. Now we have 10,000 units in our "economy". So every thing is now worth 100 units.

There's still only 100 things - because we did nothing to up the production of things - but just printed more "units" to represent them. And all we've done is cause inflation - a "unit" of money is now 100 times less valuable than it was, so you need 100 units to buy a thing, instead of the original 1 unit per thing.

You can't print-money your way out of trouble. Because all you are doing is de-valuing the currency, which is basically inflation. Everything at the supermarket costs money, because the relative value of your quid has actually decreased. The currency itself is worth less.

You understand that point, right?

Good. What's the difference between the government printing money and banks just inventing "new money" from thin air to pay out loans?

The answer is absolutely nothing. Mathematically, it's completely irrelevant who is responsible for inflating the money supply. If the money supply is bigger, without a corresponding increase in production to match it, then all you are doing is de-valuing the currency itself. You are causing inflation.

This affects everyone. Used to be that being a millionaire was impressive, but that's just selling a Central London property these days. No, you've got to be a billionaire these days to actually qualify as ultra-rich. Elon's even pushing the trillionaire barrier now. But I remember, not really that long ago, when Bill Gates having ~$40 billion made him the richest man on the planet.

This is not "them vs. us", you see. It's just mathematics. The multi-billionaires are de-valuing the currency, not just for all the poor people who now can't afford to eat, but they de-value the very thing - money - that makes them rich and powerful.

As millionaires become billionaires become trillionaires - chasing the very devaluation of the currency that they are responsible for, "printing money" for themselves through unlimited bank loans - then it's just inflationary, and the economy gets worse and worse and worse.

The existence of the ultra-rich, constantly getting richer, is not economically harmless.

I've explained that very simply and clearly for all to understand the underlying point. Now come back at me with ARGUMENTS. An actual rebuttal where you point out the mistakes I've made.

Don't give me no "monkey man need to read book" empty response, because if your rebuttal is vague and does not address the actual points, then I'm calling "bullshit" on you, and you have no counterargument.

So, actually, I have exactly figured out how things work, and that's exactly why I don't want to be wealthy. I want things to cost less instead.

I don't want to inflate the money supply side of the equation, because we actually need to increase the production side of the equation. More things, not more money.

Here's the choice:

a. double your salary
b. halve the cost of everything

The actual correct answer is "B". Because "A" is inflationary. If everyone's salaries doubled, then we're just "printing money" by the back door.

You might initially think that, mathematically, "A" and "B" are the same thing. Twice the money or half the cost - you can buy just as many things, either way. But "A" de-values the currency and is inflationary. But "B" makes you just as economically "rich", in terms of your spending power, but it's not inflationary.

I don't want more wealth. I want everything to cost less instead.

Because that's the only way we all get rich.

And inequality goes down. And as inequality is solved, then right-wing populists who blame it all on "brown people" get ignored, as there are no economic problems for the average person, so you're clearly talking out of your arse.

Crime rates will fall, because they're known to statistically rise in economically trying times - logically so, because if you can't make enough to survive through legal means, then you'll survive through illegal means instead. Because, fuck you, survival is non-negotiable and I give no fucks for society's laws, when society gives no fucks whether I can put food on my family's plates.

I don't want to give everyone more money, so they can pay their extortionate energy bills, that just makes environmentally-destructive industries even richer. I want to give you solar panels and batteries, and insulation and heat pumps, and all the tech that means you get all your energy for free in the Summer, and a good quarter knocked off your bill in Winter.

We don't need more money. We need much more of the things that money can buy, because - supply and demand - they'll cost less and so everyone's spending power goes up, in a non-inflationary way.

You've got it completely wrong. I don't blame anyone. This is a systemic problem.

Or, if you like, I blame maths teachers that the global population is so horridly innumerate to not realise their greed is literally cutting our own throats.

Yes, you can't print money. But that doesn't just apply to governments, it applies to everyone across the board. What's long-term inflation? A measure of how much the "free market" is perpetually devaluing and devaluing and devaluing the currency, over time, by constant invention of "new money" through bank loans and other mechanisms, that just creates a long-term creeping inflation.

Come back with actual arguments, not ad hominem about "Monkey man" needing to read books (even though he has a masters degree in this shit, by the way). Or I just won't bother listening to you anymore.

[tufty]

Or I just won't bother listening to you anymore.

Correct answer achievement.

[SuperMappy]

I went to get groceries and pet supplies today and several of the item have went up in price and I'm not talk a few pennies. The cat little I get that used to be $6.59 is now $7.39.

If you're hoping for more impeachments you will very likely get your wish because the voters, in this country at least, almost always turn on the party in power when the economy takes a downturn.

[tufty]

I went to get groceries and pet supplies today and several of the item have went up in price and I'm not talk a few pennies. The cat little I get that used to be $6.59 is now $7.39.

If you're hoping for more impeachments you will very likely get your wish because the voters, in this country at least, almost always turn on the party in power when the economy takes a downturn.

But it's all Crooked Joe's fault!

[F-ZeroOne]

Your occasional reminder that you are never too many steps away from being "Them":

https://kotaku.com/gamergater-milo-yian ... 2000729501

[KlaxonCow]

Trump has renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. And now he wants to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America.

By this logic, then the Atlantic Ocean will be renamed "the American Ocean" and the Pacific Ocean will be renamed... umm, "the Other American Ocean". And because America exists on planet Earth, then the planet will be renamed "Planet America", in the Americo-solar System of the American Way galaxy.

This has nothing to do with him being a vain and petty man with a small dick. Any suggestions to the contrary are a hoax.

[F-ZeroOne]

Er, I think you may have missed the part in real life where he "joked" he may do exactly that to the oceans...

[KlaxonCow]

Er, I think you may have missed the part in real life where he "joked" he may do exactly that to the oceans...

Actually, you know, I did miss that.

So how fucking ridiculous is it that I exactly predicted the depths of his insanity to the letter? By nothing more than applying his logic "reductio ad absurdum" - reduced to its inherent absurdity, by just taking its logic to its ultimate conclusion.

So, yeah, his mad rambling stopped short of this, but be assured that, in his own mind, we now all live on "planet America" in the American System (Systema Americae) of the American Way (Via Americana) galaxy.

Americans often think America is the centre of the universe and nowhere else exists - as the American educational system consists of brainwashing them every morning with the Pledge of Allegiance - and now Trump is just going to make that official.

Of course, this introduces a slight contradiction in his philosophy. Because if the entire universe is America then, technically, as everywhere qualifies as America, then there are no illegal immigrants anymore, and he should immediately disband his ICE agent thugs. As, after all, where are you going to deport them to? If everywhere is America, then you can't kick them out of America.

But don't worry, I'm sure his cowardly fear and hatred of "brown people" will overcome this slight logical problem. Basically, "brown people" will be sent to the American penal colony of "Old America" (which basically means the Old World - the rest of the planet that is not the American continent).

By the way, Google has already conceded to renaming the lake if you access Google Maps from an American IP address:



I checked, though, it's still "Lake Ontario" if viewed from the UK.

Which is ridiculous, if you think about it, that Google have had to set up Google Maps to have multiple different placenames in their databases, in order to concede to the whims, not just of Trump, but every local mad dictatorship on the planet. So every country gets its own localised version of the planet to suit them.

Humanity is absurd.

[tufty]

What's amusing is that it's not named Ontario because it's near the city or state of Ontario, but the other way around, and the lake was named from some version of an indigenous word. Which means that the city and state of Ontario should probably also be renamed "America". And also that this is arguably racist.

Can't disband ICE, though

https://kotaku.com/gamergater-milo-yian ... 2000729501