I’m not sure who “they” is in your comment?
My understanding is that socialists, anarchists, and others that might be considered “the left”, tend to love democracy. They love it so much they want to see it spread from government into the workplace. Governments that operate according to democratic republican* principals are not the enemy of the left - they’re part of it.
*note the lower case letters - not talking about political parties, but representative democracy as a philosophy
over charging customers and under paying employees
That’s the crux of the issue.
Who’s going to buy it for a high price, if there is no demand for office space, because workers are all remote?
Is it though? Seems like there’s a lot of support for religious zealots (Iran & proxies) and imperialist authoritarians (Russia). Seems pretty auth-right.
I’ve read that a shaped charge’s armor piercing jet of plasma has a fairly long reach. A direct hit with the plasma spear directed toward the center of the vehicle would probably still pierce the vehicle. However, a cage like that might provide protection from a glancing blow, where the plasma jet is not directed toward the center of mass - like, instead of getting a hole through the corner of the roof, the jet misses entirely.
deleted by creator
Ukraine, Cuba, South America, Africa, election interference, OPEC, and the list goes on.
A lot of today’s problems, like the rise of the KKK, stochastic terrorism, and infiltration of law enforcement by neo-nazis, can be traced back to an insufficient number of Confederates being hanged after the war.
MBFC is full of shit when describing bias - they call firmly right liberal capitalists “the left”. I don’t think they even have a word to describe actual socialists.
They’re decent about judging the reliability of factual reporting though.
“STINKY” is the default SSID for Starlink routers. These stupid motherfuckers couldn’t even figure out how to change the default settings. I wonder if they were using a default username and password too?
OpSec my ass.
The market didn’t need regulations to maintain its freeness back then because the vast majority of transactions were made with small businesses. The limited technological capabilities in transport and communication also decreased the need for government regulation by decreasing the ability of the largest concentrations of capital to succeed at implementing global anti-competitive strategies.
To achieve the same degree of market freedom today, in the era of omni-national mega-corporations wielding monopoly influence, requires utilizing levers of power outside of the market those mega-corps dominate. The intervention of democratic governments to enforce anti-monopoly laws and prohibit other kinds of anti-competitive behavior is a necessary component of any plan to transform today’s marketplace into one that looks more similar to the market of Adam Smith’s day.
It is though - this is what capitalism invariably becomes. Musky Twitter is a symptom of late stage capitalism. This is why so many people say capitalism is bad and doesn’t work as advertised.
The golden age of classical liberalism, when capitalism actually worked, the 1700-1800’s, more closely resembles what we would today call market socialism.
Once the agglomerations of capital became large enough to impose irresistible anti-competitive force, the days of capitalism’s beneficial functionality ended. They say “the freer the market the freer the people”, but an unregulated market isn’t free - it invariably trends toward monopoly and irrationally assigned concentrations of wealth and power, eg Musk, Bezos, DuPont, Sackler, etc…
Capitalism supports, rather than resists, the anti-competitive influence of capital. A truly free market requires the intervention of powers other than capital - eg, democratic governance imposing something akin to Market Socialism against the wishes of those anti-competitive agglomerations of capital.
fund it exclusively out of his own pocket
That’s how newspapers got started - they were propaganda organs of the rich and existed exclusively to manipulate public opinion. Things really haven’t changed that much, but somewhere along the way people were tricked into paying for them.
I think its more likely that YouTube will shut down and be replaced by nothing. Its existence has never made sense as anything but an act of charity from an organization with tech resources to burn.
Its framed as being done to “strengthen their financial resilience”, but I suspect the motive is to slow down the rate at which banks are creating new money, driving up inflation. If these bank regulations pass, we can lower taxes without blowing up the inflation rate. Or, the Federal Government can spend more without increasing taxes, keeping the inflation rate the same.
The banks hate it because they would issue fewer loans, and therefore make less money. Its takes money out of the pockets of bankers and puts it into the hands of the Federal Government.
I’m generally in favor of markets deciding what gets produced, i.e. letting the banks judge which businesses asking for loans have the best chance of paying them back. However, the market has some blind spots where we’re all better off if the government steps in - for example, defense spending, infrastructure, and R&D (investing in NASA has historically provided incredible RoI).
That the Fed is even considering this new approach suggests to me that there is a perceived need for a rush of government spending in the near future, and the current geopolitical landscape suggests it will be spent on weapons.
The polling places in some rural municipalities are literally Masonic lodges where they make you announce out loud to all in attendance which primary you want to vote in.
…I hope this doesn’t awaken anything in me…