Private health insurance is the biggest fucking scam ever. The private insurance companies benefit by getting the aggregate healthiest population into their plans (working adults). The most likely to be expensive people, i.e. old people (on medicare) or poor people (on medicaid, or not even on an insurance plan) are on government, tax payer insurance plans. There is literally no reason except for corporate profiteering that Medicare should not be expanded to cover all people.
Also all those conversations, especially in the 2020 election period, were totally bullshit. You say something like M4A will cost 44 trillion dollars or whatever, which sounds like an insane amount of money. What is often left out of the discussion is that estimated cost was 1) over 10 years and 2) has to be weighed against the current costs we already pay for insurance. So the deal was very simple: the overall costs would go down because the overall spending would be less, and at the same time millions of people without coverage would be covered, and at the same time you don't have to contemplate stupid bullshit like in network, out of network providers. Or ever again talk to your insurance about why something is or isn't covered. Boils my blood when I think too much about this.
Not even gonna weigh in on things like how medicare can't negotiate prescription drug prices (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/23/us/politics/medicare-drug-price-negotiations-lawsuits.html), or how dental, vision, and hearing are treated separately from general healthcare, or how med school is prohibitively expensive, or how the residents after med school are overworked because the guy who institutionalize that practice was literally a cokehead. Those are all just bonus topics. The point is we are getting fleeced.
NoYeah no. Get out of US bubble.
Private and public are both viable models of operations with some applicability overlap. Private doesn’t necessarily pursue profit first, despite US literally enforcing it.
Basic needs that are either unchanging or change very slowly are the purview of public policy. Healthcare, infrastructure, etc. Privatize it and you’ll have a catastrophe.
Basic needs that benefit from variation and supply elasticity with a necessary baseline is where hybrid model works well. Public entrepreneurship provides variation, regulations or public enterprises cover baseline. Agriculture is a great example of such overlap. Private-only agriculture leads to profiteering on basic human need. Public-only agriculture leads to famines due to incompetence, malice, or lack of elasticity.
Desires that people can live without and can change on a whim is where private innovation thrives. Be it a product to sell or a charity project to pursue. Some of the results of said innovation can and will become matters of public interest. Forbid private enterprise here, and you’ll end up in a bleak reality of North Korea.
We literally had a case of “public everything” half a century ago and it didn’t fucking work. It needed serfdom and insane amounts of natural resources to prop itself up. It also left a mafia-led capitalism in its wake.
We also have a live case of blind trust in markets, as if information was immediately available everywhere. It leads to a very similar looking outcome.
Sadly one of the main exports of the US is its ideology, so many other countries want to implement the same heartless, profit-oriented privatizations of every state organism.
The only instances where privatized offerings may work IMO is if the government themselves are the competition, acting as a "control".
Without a stable control that has the sole purpose of serving the people, fully privatized offerings will just squeeze more money out of already stretched households for profit as you've said... which is the case for practically everything RN
Even though this is top comment, this is an underrated answer.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chiropractor-neck-adjustment-caitlin-jensen-b2363357.html
Also, you can buy Tic Tacs from any newsagent or gas station.
Not to defend homeopathy, but a big part of why placebo works is how we percieve the medicine/treatment.
Tic tacs wouln't work as well as fake medicine (aka homeopathy) because they don't look as "official".
The entire industry is built on catering to the vast swaths of women who get ignored by doctors and need somewhere to turn.
I highly suspect doctors are taught in medical school, "women are over emotional and prone to exaggeration."
Hell, "hysteria" was considered a valid diagnosis until the 1950s.
This guy gets it. Chiropractors are a scam, but scammers are drawn to people who "fall through the cracks" because they're treated like their problems don't actually exist. Finally, they meet someone who takes their pain seriously. It's too bad the person who takes it "seriously" is a fucking charlatan.
It falls harder on women, who have more instances of pain that are ignored by the medical community, partially from the history mentioned above, claiming women must be experiencing "hysteria."
It absolutely happens because of the failings of the medical community.
The stock market and publicly traded companies. The idea that a business that is making consistent profits isn't good unless those profits are increased each quarter is asinine. This system of shortsighted hyper focus on short term quarterly growth for the sake of growth is the cause of so much pain and suffering in the world. Even companies with amazing financials will work to push workers compensation down, cut corners and exploit loopholes to make sure their profits are always growing. Consistent large profits aren't good enough.
Instapot. Instapot made too good of a product, most people buy one and its good for years. That's good for consumers but terrible for investors. The company that bought them out and took them public saddled them with a ton of debt from other sectors and now they're bankrupt.
Yup. Great article about that and many other failures of capitalism here if anyone wants something to share with a fence sitter in their life.
Google's shares are divided into two types, Class A and Class C. Class A shares, traded as GOOGL, confer one vote per share as a typical stock would. Class C shares, traded as GOOG, confers no voting privileges. This dual shares system was done to raise more money selling less useful Class C shares (intended for mutual funds and the like) while keeping control of the company in the hands of those held on to Class A shares (i.e. longtime executives).
Ah, thanks for the info. That's actually what I suspect is happening with the new fractional shares thing, but the brokerage is the one retaining control.
The scam that has passed the test of time. So scamming good, that even communists turn to it!
Which communists? The USSR was infiltrated and the US then spent millions getting the bumbling mass of ethanol known as Yeltsin to win an election. They (the new capitalist government) even sieged the parliament building and sent tanks in Moscow to disperse the huge waves of protestors. It then lead to one of the worst humanitarian crisis in the modern age almost overnight.
And in China they are assuredly not capitalist, this becomes very clear once you read Deng Xiaoping. It's Schroedinger's China: when they do something bad they're communists, and when they do something good (like lifting people out of poverty) they're capitalists.
Cuba is still socialist, DPRK is still socialist, Vietnam is also reforming and opening up kinda like China did but a bit differently so still socialist
Are we really denying that the "Chinese Characteristics" of the PRC's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is Capitalism? Btw, I think the good parts of China are the socialism bits.
The CPC controls all capital in the country. They are coordinating and intervening in the economy with the goal of building a socialist society. This is very different from the US and it's client states. Capital is controlled by the bourgeois, with no obligations other than a gluttonous desire to accumulate.
capitalism is not bits and pieces here and there, it's an entire mode of production with its own base and superstructure. In that sense China can't be called capitalist. At best we could say it has "capitalist elements" but even then that's a stretch when getting down into the details of what these elements actually are.
I mean, some (most? Idk) of the means of production are owned by the state (ostensibly a proxy for the people, I'd rather it was more direct but the government has consistently high approval so I'll give it a pass) and those are clearly socialistic.
But there are certainly factories and what not owned by capitalists, and as that accounts for much of the production that goes on in China, and as these products are not destined to serve the public weal but rather to be sent abroad as bits and bobs to be sold and promptly thrown away as serves global capital, I really don't get the desire to not call this capitalism.
China, to me, has a very clear mixed economy with elements of both socialism and capitalism.
But as I've argued, having elements of capitalism like commodity production (and the subsequent export of these commodities) does not make China capitalist by themselves, which is also the original point I was making, that China has not "turned" to capitalism* like OP might have implied.
Markets are not inherently capitalist, and these capitalist elements in China allow them to build their productive forces which are required to achieve socialism, they're also the same commodities they build for the Belt and Road initiative, for example 😁
Capitalism can be summed up in many ways, and one of them is production for the sake of finding a market and making money. There is capital in China (in the marxist definition) and people can make money, but while these capitalist want to simply make more money, for the Chinese government the goal is to build up production and achieve socialism, hence why the superstructure of China vs. any country in the imperial core is different. In the first case (capitalism) we'll just keep producing and creating markets infinitely, the "anarchy of production and socialisation of labour", and in the second case they're using some methods (with the consequences that come with it -> if you make a factory to produce stuff, you will have to find a market to buy that stuff so you can produce more stuff) as a stepping stone until they don't need to any more.
Of course the superstructure is predicated on the base, and in China for example land is leased to businesses, but never sold, and the government can take back their property at any time, including whatever is on it. It's fundamentally different to capitalism in the west.
I would argue that feudalism is a lot more time tested than this garbage system that even in theory is so flawed that it regularly results in global economic crises. Feudalism on the other hand has been considerably more stable throughout the centuries and whether or not you are forced to serve a nobleman or a CEO is not a big difference. So, stop getting scammed and get back to the fields, peasant.
I'm also looking forward to a viable/stable alternative. I have serious doubts that I'll see one in my lifetime, unfortunately.
You should stop getting your evaluations on alternatives to capitalism from the capitalists and their countries
There is a reason I reply to lemmygrad and hexbear people, and follow some of the communities. Sometimes I get interesting responses. Not your response, but sometimes.
No, but you didn't need to engage in circle-jerking with your friends either. You are capable of more, and I look forward to reading your future contributions.
There is no stable alternative. There is always going to be class struggle. Materialist conditions and human rights must always be fought for and defended, else you’re gonna lose them.
I have serious doubts that I'll see one in my lifetime, unfortunately.
Not with that attitude you won't
I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.
That's why it's called "the lesser of two evils."
The problem is that they aren't two evils, they're two parts of the same evil machine whose functions are mutually dependent and mutally reinforcing
Show
"The United States is also a one-party state, but in typical American extravagance, they have two of them." -Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means.
It doesn't mean "that guy's bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!"
It means "no matter which one of these assholes wins, I'm fucked, but if I'm lucky the one guy will use lube."
I can't do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can't see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I'm to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I'm fucked no matter who I pick, so I'm sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I'm sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I'm a gullible moron instead.
Edit: Sorry, wrong starting sentence. I meant to say:
Clearly not browbeaten enough.
Lesser of two evils means we're fucked either way, but one way slightly less. It means there are not good choices, just less bad ones. If you sat through the Trump presidency and still think there's no difference, then I don't know what the fuck to tell you. If you can't look at how fucked trans people are in Florida and other red states right now and still say there's no difference, then go fuck yourself.
They're both shit, but one of wants to fucking murder my friends. There's a fucking difference. And if I sound mad, it's because people saying shit like this vote dumbass third parties that can't possibly win, or sit out an election because of protests. People are fucking dead because of this dumbass "there's no difference" bullshit.
You wanna tear down the system and stat over? Fine, great, get going. I'll even help if it looks like you might have a prayer. But right now, there is no hope. There's just mitigation of harm. Your idealism gets people killed.
I tend to repeat myself whenit appears that my audience isn't listening. You're the third person who seemed to think that "lesser of two evils" meant "if one guy's bad, the other guys good." People in this thread keep acting like I'm happy with the Democratic party or something.
So, since it seemed like you didn't understand what I'd said, I repeated myself. I'm pedantic for the same reason: you're either ignoring what I'm saying or don't understand it. Either way, I apparently have to spell it out.
Nice use of the word "esoteric". Did you find that in the word a day calendar this morning? It doesn't really apply here, though, because nothing I've said is esoteric. It's not arcane, obscure, or in any way difficult to understand. And I don't think it is.
I just think you're either being intentionally obtuse to rile me up, or you really don't get what I'm saying.
It's all good, though, dude. I'm tired. I'm just so fucking tired. I've been watching this shit unfold for close to five decades, sometimes while getting shot at, and I'm tired.
I'm mad, but I fucking give up. My position - despair - isn't worth fighting for and I don't know why I briefly thought it was. I fucking surrender.
Let me know how that revolution you guys are never going to have goes.
Under the policies of the greater evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them. Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them.
It makes no difference, both parties should be opposed and true change can only come through revolution and the abolition of the capitalist class.
Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die as you say.
Under the policies and rhetoric of the greater evil, a woman just got brutally murdered in California for the crime of hanging a fucking flag outside her shop.
My point, as I have been trying in vain to make this whole time (but apparently don't have the writing ability to convey) is that if you're fucked no matter what you do, then do the thing that hurts your friends less.
If you have some other course of action that can lead to actual change, then tell me. If you have some other course of action that will help my trans friends today, then tell me. Because billions dying over the next century doesn't mean much to people who get shot, stabbed, or beaten to death today.
I want to believe there's a better way, though, so explain it to me.
The action that leads to security and a better life for yourself and those around you is to organize your community along whatever lines are possible. Unionize with your coworkers, form a tenant's union with your neighbors, physically get out in the street and provide security for LGBT+ events and spaces. Build up parallel structures so that when the government fails, you and those you care about will still have access to food and water, a place to live, and security. Join a political organization that's active and actually does things in your area (one of the communist parties, DSA, or even just Food not Bombs) and do all you can to prepare for a revolution that might never come.
I'll close this by saying that I've been harsh on voting and the electoral system in general during this conversation, and probably too hostile in tone towards you. I apologize for that, because it's sometimes hard to tell when someone is actually acting in good faith, this being the internet and all. Voting isn't something I think is particularly useful, but if you vote for the democrats because they're less openly fascistic, that's up to you. The key is to not let your political activity start and end at voting, because direct action in the real world is by far the best way to achieve positive change. I wish you and yours the best in surviving the collapsing fascist hellhole we find ourselves in.
spoilered giant emoji
I agree with everything but the "it makes no difference" part. Thinking it makes no difference is a privilege a whole shit ton of people can't afford.
They're both horrible. Capitalism sucks. But to say there's no difference? That's just delusional. You're missing the trees for the forest.
Until that "true change" you're talking about happens, I'm not willing to sit by and let women, immigrants, minorities, and LGBTQIA+ people get fucked over even worse than I am. And fuck you if you are.
Roe V Wade was repealed under Biden. The concentration camps at the border are still open. In response to the mass murder of black people by cops, Biden gave more money to the cops. The extermination of trans people is continuing apace at the state level and the dems are doing nothing to stop it. This is all to say nothing about foreign policy, where the US is still complicit with killing thousands if not millions since 2020 through sanctions and facilitating genocide in Yemen. Or lifting all COVID restrictions despite the massive danger still posed.
There is a rhetorical difference between the two parties, but there isn't much evidence of a material difference.
Okay.
What word did I say that made you think I'm happy with the Democrats? That I actually support them rather than hate them just marginally less than the fascists in the other party?
It's all fucked. And the Supreme Court was stacked by the last administration, so you're arguing against yourself buddy.
What word did I say that made you think I'm happy with the Democrats?
I never said you were. I was addressing the claim that they're a lesser evil, which I'm not convinced by.
It's all fucked.
Agreed!
And the Supreme Court was stacked by the last administration
Largely irrelevant. Biden could stack the court, or just tell them to fuck off since they have no real power, or codified Roe into law when the dems controlled congress. There are excuses for why they couldn't do any of those things, sure (not least of which that Biden opposes abortion rights himself because he's a fucking monster). But all of them show that they're fundamentally unserious in fighting back against the fascists. I'm not going to vote for von Hindenburg 2.
you voted and still got roe v wade overturned.
Roe v Wade got overturned by a Supreme Court that was stacked by the Republicans during the previous administration you absolute waste. You're literally arguing against your own point.
And again: what fucking part of any fucking word I've typed makes you think I'm happy with the Biden administration.
Oh, wait! You're not actually reading anything I'm saying! You're just shifting goalposts and regurgitating talking points! Holy fuck, it's like talking to a communist version of my mother.
Don't talk to me unless you actually know something. Take your useless idealism elsewhere.
I'm reading what you're saying, it's just so dumb and trite it might as well be embroidered on a tea cozy
The fact that I feel the same way about you probably indicates that this is a pointless waste of time on all sides.
And what is your vote doing to stop that? Anything at all?
In the Biden election? Nothing. Roe was done for as soon as Trump won. It was on life support, but people refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils pulled the plug.
I'm tired dude. I'm just so fucking tired.
Do what you want. You're not gonna accomplish any more than I am so I'm not sure why I cared enough to get worked up. We're all fucked no matter what. Do your little protest vote or whatever the fuck. I'm sure it's gonna do so fucking much.
You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means.
It doesn't mean "that guy's bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!"
It means "no matter which one of these assholes wins, I'm fucked, but if I'm lucky the one guy will use lube."
I can't do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can't see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I'm to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I'm fucked no matter who I pick, so I'm sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I'm sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I'm a gullible moron instead.
Ugh. I'm not pro establishment. People who are pro establishment think it works. People who are pro establishment have hope
Where the fuck did you get that out of what I wrote? Do I sound hopeful? Or like I think the system in any way works?
Or is that just your canned response when someone disagrees with you and you can't think of a decent comeback?
Is that what you kids call a "cope"? It sounds like a "cope". My generation just calls it "What the fuck are you even talking about?"
How. How am I doing that? I'm too tires to fight you, I'm just looking for information at this point.
The way we got to that situation you describe is through 3 generations of “the lesser evil” over and over and over
Turns out that made everything get more evil, who’d have thought!
If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.
Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?
I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.
But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.
But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way.
I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
I'll guess ending the Vietnam war...
Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.
Which brings me back to my point. If:
- My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and …
- Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and…
- If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then…
what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.
And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.
So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.
That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me.
So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.
But that's what I was already doing.
Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.
If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.
The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy?
I don't think it's at all unrelated.
Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed.
It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.
Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process
I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation.
I agree their current incarnation is, but you don’t mean to say that sports are inherently anti-intellectual do you?
It was so disheartening that the ACA just funneled billions more to insurance companies, only it was taxpayer money.
It would be like trying to fix broadband internet by forcing everyone to have a Comcast plan, and using taxpayer dollars to pay for those plans.
Would medicare for all be a good next step to push for? Are any progressive politicians putting forth a viable plan for getting us closer to universal healthcare?
american healthcare will continue to suck as long as politicians are friends instead of enemies of private health insurance. as long as both parties are on the payroll of big insurance we're all getting screwed
For-profit housing is a massive racket. Investment firms posing as housing developers get tax breaks for buying up properties, inflating the market, pricing out families, and renting those same homes back to the community to pay the mortgage on their investment, plus profit. What fucking purpose do they serve society? Pure predatory capitalist greed at the expense of our housing. For-profit housing needs to be banned. Investment real estate needs to be regulated until all our citizens can afford to buy homes in their localities.
No because at grocery stores, you get a product.
With renting, you are paying for landlord's mortgage. You don't even get to own anything.
Also, grocery stores do operate like a scam in certain cases, for example price gouging during a pandemic or other disasters.
Are you a landlord?
With renting, you're paying for a place to live and store your stuff. That's a product. It's a physical thing you can touch.
With food, you use it for a while then it just goes down the toilet in the end. Does that mean you should stop eating?
Is it though? You get the same home and get to own it if you had enough down-payment. The only thing landlord has the renter doesn't is the capital for down-payment.
Once again asking, are you a landlord?
There are people who can't save up for a down payment and therefore wouldn't be able to responsibly take care of a house even if they were given one.
There's people who don't want to own a house. A house comes with a bunch of costs and responsibility.
- Your furnace goes out in winter, bam, that can be an expensive service call or several thousands of dollars to replace.
- Your sewer line backs up because of tree roots on a Sunday or holiday and now it's several hundred dollars to get a drain company out there.
- Need a new roof? That's a $5,000+ expense all at once.
These are just a few examples. There's quite a number more. Some people like knowing that expenses like that are covered by someone else.
In the grocery store example, there's people who like growing their own food. For others, they'd rather someone else do that even if they're paying a markup to buy it from a grocery store, because they can get everything in one place.
60-65% of households in the USA are homeowners, either outright or through a mortgage. 80-90% of households in Eastern Europe are homeowners. It's pretty clear that people who are perennial renters are mostly people who cannot clear the financial hurdle of a down payment. I don't think the "some people don't want to" line is a solid argument. It's the exception thata proves the rule.
The repairs and property taxes and mortgage all add up to a total that is less than the rent, on average. Otherwise, landlords would have a disincentive, and every landlord would be operating at a loss.
The points you made are points that landlords use as justification for their occupation/position. Are you a landlord?
Credit scores. It goes up when you have more debt and goes down when you pay your debt off, but it goes down if you ask for a loan and it goes down if you even try to check what it is.
Absolute nonsense.
It's so stupid, in a state with a communist vanguard party a social credit system is unironically better since it marks a step towards a classless moneyless society that the American credit score system is antithetical towards.
It doesn't usually go down when you pay debt off. In fact, paying off all your credit card debt every single month is a great strategy that will get you a good credit score. And is ideal, because that way you avoid the high interest rates that credit cards have.
It also doesn't go down if you check it with sites like Credit Karma. I believe what you're thinking of is hard checks, which loan issuers use and they can slightly ding your score as they represent you about to get a new line of credit. Though honestly that part is pretty sketchy, since it applies even if you don't get a new loan.
Oh man- here I am having paid off every debt I've had early and never being punished for it. Guess your response of 1989 just really showed me.
I've got dings on my credit report for no debt lol. I get dings for not using enough of my credit limit and also for using too much. It's a stupid system that exists to measure how easily banks can fleece you.
It's not about paying it off, it's about closing an account. When you pay a loan off the account closes, and that's where you get dinged. Paying off a credit card isn't a problem, because the account is still active.
Yes that's not my experience. It's a measure of how responsibly you utilize your debt. They like to see you use your debt. But they like to see you pay it off. They don't like for you to sit at a high percentage of debt. And they like to see that you've used your debt responsibly for an extended period of time
They want you in debt so you're forced to work, and so that they can grift interest money off you. According to their system it's irresponsible to not have debt, and it's also irresponsible to ask what their magic number is.
When you pay a loan off your score will go down because an account is closed. It's short term though. Not paying a debt will tank the score.
This person is passionately against something they have convinced themselves they fully understand without having any real idea wtf they are talking about. Reading his comments is reminiscent of my mother arguing to me that cost of living isn’t real, such pointless garbage and she gets upset unless you just nod your head and act enlightened somehow. Reading his comments, he’s convinced himself of how the credit rating system is bad, likely reinforced by misunderstood anecdotal evidence and other ignorant people sharing their anecdotal misunderstood experiences, or even made up hogwash. So much so that he digs his heels in and refuses to learn anything that would even allow him to form a valid critique against the credit rating system, preferring instead to be convinced he is infallible and enlightened while loudly spewing confidently incorrect bullshit.
Water should be safe to drink from taps. Holy shit. I have a 1 liter bottle, I fill it a couple of times a day at home and it's great...
if you haven't already, consider getting a reusable bottle not made of plastic, over time it degrades significantly and sheds a lot more microplastics in the water
The "Covid is over" propaganda. Covid is not over. It is still killing people, still disabling people, still giving people lifelong autoimmune conditions and other long-term health problems. "Covid is over" Is code for "Go back to work so the capitalist class can reap the rewards of your labor, no matter how dead or disabled you become in the process."
I've been struggling with long COVID since I got it a second time in April. It's destroyed my body.
Oof, my bad. Info came from someone I know, evidently I made the mistake of believing them.
Thanks, and thanks for letting me know. I'll have to let that person know that, as much as I normally take their word on stuff because they have a lot of common sense and keep up on reputable news sources, this particular "fact" was a blatant lie and whatever news source they got it from needs to be vetted more thoroughly.
Honestly it's cool. Personally I try to be very objective, scientific, and factual about stuff, but I've 100% been wrong about things in the past. I think the measure of a person is their ability to admit a mistake in the face of irrefutable evidence against their POV.
Also non scientific bodies have been chiming in to promote the theory. With the whole anti-China thing going on, it's gotten a lot more traction that it should have. If the superstructure wants this idea to become mainstream, it can and did.
That is still a possibility but given the conditions of some of the illegal wet markets in China, it is significantly more likely to have stemmed from one of those. I was reading the book Spillover, which was written before COVID, and they went to some wet markets around where SARS originated and while there were more regulations around wet markets, they were largely ignored. The author basically concluded that it was still a ripe environment for another SARS outbreak.
Personally, I'd like to see "Canada's Guantanamo" shut down. Let me put it this way, in Guantanamo a bunch of adults were force-fed protein shakes to break a hunger strike, which is pretty twisted BUT... The place I'm angry about starved families with young kids until the kids ate dirt just to sate their hunger pains, and it's MY fucking country doing it? NO. STOP IT. They're innocent kids and even supposed to be Canadian citizens, you arrogant french-speaking oil fund baby bastard, GET THEM AND THEIR PARENTS HOME NOW TRUDEAU.
Sorry, just pointing out a place I don't approve of that I can actually back up with evidence and to be clear my previous statement isn't an anti-China view so much as an anti-corruption view that happened to be based on flawed info. I'm sure the CCP has done some nasty things but I have no evidence of anything specific, and what country at this point HASN'T turned out to have done hypocritical things to people who did nothing wrong?
Hopefully that can be changed by the nature of federated social media, I kind of feel like there was an atmosphere of persecution of outsiders on Reddit that I haven't encountered here; When I say something, I know if I've screwed up because a reply will point it out. On reddit, the downvoting affected things but no one ever said why. Plus I can look at a person's post history and figure out if they hate me for my opinion and are just causing trouble, or if they simply disagree and I should consider them a valid critic.
I'm not going to deny that either, but considering it happened in the 60s and 70s at latest that's like being mad at Biden about the War on Drugs, or even being mad at the British Prime Minister for children who died working in coal mines during the Industrial Revolution... Some of these mass graves may or may not be from as far back as the 19th century, IIRC. Still absolutely horrible, if I found about that when it happened (and if I had been born by that point) I would either be even more mentally damaged by it than I am in the real timeline and spend my life hiding in the woods out of fear of people, or in prison for trying to kill the entire staff of a residential school like some sort of child-avenging serial killer.
I get that prevention of any crime via privacy invasion is precrime, so at least put to death any adult who is charged with killing a child (with a slow painful death for the real culprit if the first guy who was executed was actually innocent; I am not a fan of the idea that wrongful death by the legal system is somehow okay, but honestly it's never going to be a perfect system) once their guilt is confirmed. No, it's not ideal, but the alternative is an angry mob demanding the accused
witchpedophile (key word accused, as in, not confirmed) be burned at the stake. You want to protect your kids AND avoid totalitarian oppression? Well, that's the only way I can imagine it happening, please prove me wrong but this culture of "people who hurt kids with sex are evil but hurting kids in any other way is okay because..." needs to stop. Hurting kids in ANY form because you know their word means less than yours and thus you'll get away with it is sickening, especially if you're accusing someone else of being a threat.Believe me, violence against kids and even unfair restrictions (there's a difference between "no TV because you imitate stupid crap" and "only 15 minutes of TV a day even though cartoon episodes are 30 minutes including commercials because I'm clueless and want to force my opinions on you") are no less scarring to a kid while growing up than sexual assault. I would know because I lived in a foster home for two years because I was literally taken from my family by the "Ministry of Children and Families" along with dozens of other kids with disabilities as a plot to "save money" (for Gordon Campbell's pockets) by centralizing mental health care for children. It's high time the hypocrisy about children's safety be taken seriously in instances where it can be: When a child is in serious danger and keeping them unharmed is such a simple decision as "bring them home from that awful place" or "don't kill them yourself just because of what culture they're from" and the decision is "hurt the child", I don't care whether it was for sex, money or hatred, they're ALL equally monstrous to make that decision.
The "against removing downvotes" was a typo I assume? It doesn't read logically. Also, really hoping that face doesn't mean you're trolling me. I get that I talk a lot so I'll shut up now, just don't rub it in if you think I'm too wordy.
Pretty sure that Mickey Mouse and Randy Marsh caused it. Shouldn't have fucked that pangolin.
While it's not entirely ruled out, the lab leak hypothesis is looking less and less likely for a variety of reasons. The most likely suspect at this time is a raccoon dog sold at a specific wet market in Wuhan about 7 miles away from the WIV lab. This has not been proven yet either, it's just the most likely, so ultimately we still don't actually know.
There was a deep-dive article about it in the NYT Magazine recently.
I don't really know what to make of it to be honest. I always knew it would be "over" before all of the circumstances that made it an emergency were over. Actually I was very surprised it continued to be taken seriously for as long as it did at least here in Australia because I assumed political and economic interests would kick in after only a very short while I guess because of my usual cynicism.
However, part of the trouble with the whole thing is that there's no agreement on what over would really mean and no acceptable set of preconditions that could reasonably be set to define it. It's very unlikely we'll ever eradicate the virus, so we need to become endemic, but it's also very contagious and frequently mutates. We can set the threshold of the point at which health services can keep on top of cases but that's dependent on different contexts in different countries and regions and also politics. We can help that along tremendously with vaccines but that has to keep going and be taken by whopping majorities of people forever. Take up was good, but helped in large part by being an emergency and if it needs to be an emergency to achieve that then it will never be "over". It's also difficult because while critics and conspiracy theorists kept pointing out how the mortality rate was comparatively low against other infections diseases, the comparatively heavy (albeit with a shaky start) public measures to combat the disease could be justified by both the numbers of people vulnerable to it making the total number of deaths high and the fact that we posessed means we previously didn't to respond to such a pandemic scenario which made us ethically obliged to do so. That's all entirely reasonable justification for being in a state of varying forms of "emergency" which allowed for temporary and extraordinary measures but it begins to wear away with time as the consequences of the measures begin to manifest their own harms and ironically as our measures begin to see some success.
It's a hell of a problem because diseases just don't fit with the way we go about solving problems which is more like a project with an end date and a budget and a tally of easily identified harms and benefits. Unfortunately it means COVID will inevitably be "over" because we say it is before it ever actually can truly be and it kind of puts us on track for more waves of it and also for forgetting about and leaving behind people still contracting or suffering lasting consequences from it.
But I don't really see a solution. It really does have to be over at some point. People genuinely can't be expected to be worrying about this forever and eventually will tire of caution and tire of restrictions and as well they should since we'd consider it madness to still be in a state of health emergency with temporary restrictions to freedom of movement and business and mandatory medical procedures and constant news broadcasts with the latest case numbers for the Spanish Flu pandemic, it even the 2003 SARS virus.
There are better vaccines and antivirals coming out of the research pipeline. There are generics for Paxlovid coming on the market. In the short-term, mask and ventilate.
Covid is the third or fourth leading killer in the USA, right after heart disease and cancer, but liberals believe it no longer exists. They are literally killing themselves and everyone around them to keep the line up.
Yeah. The propaganda machine has told them covid is not a problem anymore, and that's what they believe. People are being brainwashed.
This is why I can't understand hexbear comments.
liberals believe it no longer exists
Who said Covid no longer exists? Except some deluded right-wingers who never believed it existed in the first place, everyone knows it still exists.
Are you wearing an n95 in every indoor public place? If not, your actions say that you no longer believe covid to be an issue. In your mind at least, because covid only affects the old and young and disabled and the poor, it might as well no longer exist.
Life is not black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.
In your mind at least, because covid only affects the old and young and disabled and the poor, it might as well no longer exist.
Not true. I know I could get it and suffer. But I no longer wear masks because the probability of that outcome is low, compared to the 100% probability of inconvenience with wearing a mask (fogging up my glasses, for example - I've never been able to stop that problem).
I also know the next time I get into a car, I could be in a very serious life-altering or life-ending crash. But I still ride in cars. Because the odds of a serious crash like that happening are low, and the convenience of riding in a car far outweighs that probability.
Everyone has to gauge their own risk levels for events and decide for themselves what is appropriate.
But I still ride in cars.
Do you wear a seatbelt? The sooner you admit to yourself that you’re a eugenicist, the happier you’ll be.
Do you wear a seatbelt? The sooner you admit to yourself that you’re a eugenicist, the happier you’ll be.
Do you use cars? Isn't that being a eugenicist as well since you might kill someone doing it?
And here I thought I'd found the first hexbear I've seen who might argue things in good faith. Nope. I can't wait until we can block whole instances at a user level. You guys aren't adding anything useful to lemmy. Reading the things you post is like reading a "I'm 15 and I know everything" group.
Do you use cars?
Can you survive without a car (outside of like 2 major cities) in the USA? A better question would also be: can you survive without a mask while airborne AIDS is blowing around and turning people's brains into Swiss cheese? You have at least a 10% chance of getting long covid each time you're infected. And some of these people with long covid are bedridden. Like unable to even turn themselves over in bed. Imagine knowing that you had done that to someone, that you had hollowed out some kid's brain because you thought it was too hard to put on a mask, because it's too hard to conceptualize a world in which we work for each other and help each other rather than our bosses.
Actually, I would love to live in a car-free world. I would love to take trains, buses, and bicycles everywhere. But I can't because of piece of shit liberals like yourself licking the boot of the capitalists who run the fucking USA. Bullet trains might save the planet from climate change, but then how are the investors in oil companies and car companies supposed to pay for their endless vacations? It's such a hard choice! I, too, could be rich someday, even if the whole fucking planet is going to be incinerated long before that ever happens!
Reading the things you post is like reading a "I'm 15 and I know everything" group.
I'm 35, I have a spouse and kids, I've worked all kinds of jobs and lived for years in other countries. I'm telling you from my experience that you are placing yourself (and the people around you, including me) in incredible danger, all to help people like Biden and the Democrats who don't give a fuck about you, who are paid to lose, and who think it's weird that you'll do what they want without even being told. But it doesn't have to be this way.
Wait are there downbeats on it? We don't have downbeats anymore so we can't see them
Car dealerships. They are awful on purpose. In many places car manufacturers are not legally allowed to sell their cars directly to customers, in order to create what is essentially legally mandated car dealerships, which all suck.
My younger coworker was just super stoaked that he only paid $3000 over MSRP for his new car. They gave him a year of oil changes and undercoat for free though!
Yeesh.
Man, I am so tired of feeling broke all the time... But I'd still rather get a used car than do that.
In many places car manufacturers are not legally allowed to sell their cars directly to customers
I want to hear the excuse they made for this
Car dealership owners are a pretty big lobby, at least 20% of them are making 1.5m/y and tend to be very involved in local politics.
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~yagan/Capitalists.pdf
Dollar stores. A lot of the time they are profiting by selling you a smaller quantity at a slightly lower price. They target low income communities.
Well they are good for things like cups and all , at least in india !
I mean yeah, obviously they're profitable. It's the convenience though. Sometimes they have good deals if you don't want to buy a giant pack of something.
