followed tags: 16
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 1
member for: 1347 days
Can anyone tell me why this doesn't mean my son's generation and every generation after is screwed? Is this trend likely to continue? Is there any hope?
I think this may have been more effective if she was open to more fundamental lifestyle changes instead of trying to change as little as possible about her life while getting rid of products from these companies. If the reason she's interested in cutting out products from these companies is because they're addictive, pervasive, too powerful, and bad for you, it implies that we've centered our lives around them. So effectively getting rid of them means lifestyle changes, which this reporter seems to have little interest in.
Things like lack of constant music, being harder to communicate not in person, and not using the easy but allegedly unethical services, are all part of the point. It doesn't make sense to question if these products are good for us without honestly asking what a good life looks like without them. With rates of suicide and depression rising over the past decade, especially in teens, instead of asking what to replace Instagram with, it makes more sense to explore what life is like replacing Instagram with more personal and meaningful connections.
- That's what reducing externalities looks like.
You're implying all businesses have the same externalities. Because right now they all pay the same tax rate regardless of what they do. Really reducing externalities would look more like beef being $15/pound and air travel costing double what it does now, but solar power being cheaper than coal and locally produced goods being more competitive because of lower transportation costs.
You say taxes are the cost of operation. Okay, let's tax according the costs of operation. Not a flat rate regardless of what the true cost of operation is.
You make some very good points.
What I meant by correcting for externalities is imposing fines for things that have a social cost or burden.
And, related to that, what I meant was 0% corporate income tax, and my thinking was one could charge directly for costs incurred by society because of a corporation.
But the obvious question is how? Charging for some costs is straightforward, and some not. Part of the answer would be a high unimproved land value tax.
I want the dream restaurants to be taxed less than the union carbides, you know? But I feel like the way I want to do it adds complexity. Maybe it would be too complicated to do things this way? On the other hand, it sort of seems like how a lot of local govenments operate right now.
That's all fine, but if you want a tax policy that favors workers and creators, you might want to rethink taxing the holy hell out of businesses. Because corporations will simply pass the cost to the consumer of their products as much as possible. Workers and creators are going to have to care a lot more about making money if the cost of every consumer good increases. It's much more direct to just tax the wealthy. Like you said, investment taxes. Preferably progressive investment taxes. Tax the people that own the businesses. You mention taxing idle wealth. To me, corporations are close to a definition of wealth that is not idle. Especially smaller and locally owned ones.
Taxes are for things we want less of. They are a disincentive. I do not believe we want less businesses. We want things like less carbon emissions, and less wealth inequality.
If loving a regulated free market is neoliberal, then I'm a neoliberal. For non-essential goods, I think it's a great way to allocate resources. It's not even incompatible with social democracy, and in fact it's what we see in those countries. The problem is lassez-faire style markets. I did not mean to imply that's what I want. Use capitalism when it works, correct for it when it doesn't, and prevent it from doing harm (these are externalities).
And I didn't elaborate very well in that I really do love the free market but also believe in a social floor. Basic needs should be provided for every person.
And you're right, my belief that a 0% corporate tax is best is unusual, but please don't lump me in with reactionaries. I don't want lower taxes. Corporate taxes don't do what people think they do. It doesn't tax the wealthy, and it doesn't tax wealth. Instead, it taxes consumers indirectly and helps kill low margin businesses. It's much more efficient to tax rich people directly, instead of taxing corporations and thinking you're taxing rich people. Tax people when they take money out of a business. Most economists agree with my position to a large extent, including ones on the left. At the least they say the corporate tax should be quite low.
And I'm not really opposed to Medicare for all. It would be a lot better than what we have now. I just meant it's not the only way to improve things, and maybe not the very best. I would vote for someone that supported it though.
Fascinating. If you watch closely while reading this article, you can see the Overton Window move before your very eyes.
Schultz seems firmly center-right to me, but the article paints him as center-left or straight center. Like, taking abortion out of the equation, how would Schultz be different than Jeb Bush? Or Mitt Romney? You know, actual normal Republican candidates?
I don't like that because I'm actually center-left! I should be one of the fanatical centrists being talked about, but I'm not! I hate communism and love the free market (corrected for externalities (like climate change)). I am skeptical of single-payer healthcare. Yet the way this is written excludes my part of the political spectrum entirely.
How can I be skeptical of single-payer healthcare when every other first-world country has it except us? Mostly because that's not true, and I suspect Germany's system may work better for us.
As for business taxes, they're way too high. They should be 0%. Then we could offset that with carbon taxes and higher taxes on the ultra wealthy.
As for the debt, I do think it's a problem. Not number one, but a problem. You know how you solve it? By raising taxes during the boom cycles. Don't forget to lower them during the busts.
Watched Tristan und Isolde with my wife, so this:
Also this ranty but accurate song:
Except with Abbado, who is a better conductor.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, Signal now has push-to-talk voice messages. I haven't used the feature in either service, so maybe they differ in some usability way.
And I agree, censorship is popular when it's framed as preventing concrete harm in the present at the risk of potential greater harm later on. Most people will accept that bargain.
With a reasonable degree of confidence, Signal is the best secure messaging app. It's open source, audited, and e2e encrypted. Whatsapp started using Signal's encryption as well, but Signal doesn't share data with Facebook.
Also, a reminder that currently, Facebook can and does read Messenger's messages. It reads the text and also follows any links in the messages, and uses this info for advertising purposes.
My main concern with this move is that Facebook will start keeping and using the metadata (who you send messages to, and when), correlating it with other data (where you were when you sent those messages, whether or not you're FB friends with this person, what groups you're members of, your political leanings, etc), and using it for its own purposes. I am also concerned about Facebook outright breaking or backdooring the end to end encryption on Whatsapp and using the new backdoored encryption for all three services.
Probably something like 2, but I would have to think about it. I have about an undergrad level of understanding of astronomy, physics, and probably chemistry. I can do multivariable calculus...or at least I could 10 years ago. My math might be a little better than that when it comes to electromagnetic stuff because of my EE job, but maybe not. I feel confident in my ability to learn new maths. Like if you needed to use a tensor in an equation I could figure out what it is. But I have forgotten a lot more math than I know right now, and would need to relearn a lot. Right now I know 0 quantum mechanics.