I've never been opposed to using public debt to pay for public goods, but there's three caveats to that:
1. You take out a loan, you have a plan to pay back the loan in your lifetime. If you take out a loan and never intend to pay it back, you're selling your kids into slavery. Many such cases.
2. Never "privatize" public goods. If a private investor wants to make a thing, they can pay to make a thing.
3. Public debt for public goods, not consumption. The past decade has seen trillions of dollars of public debt we're never going to pay back that was spent on direct payments to businesses and individuals solely for consumption.
Unfortunately, these three points mean most public debt violates my principles.
People will make arguments that intergenerational debt is ok because it's important to the economy. As I consider intergenerational debt (particularly of either consumption spending or of public goods that are then sold to the private sector) as slavery, then the same argument applied for slavery proper -- people didn't want to give up the institution of slavery because it was important to certain economies.
Now perhaps you might go "But how are we going to manage macroeconomic swings?" -- and I'd answer that if you really want that, then there's only one real way: A sovereign wealth fund that is built up in the good times and drawn down in the bad times. You pay as you go. The benefit of this is that you only really want to draw down that fund if you need to, and once it's gone it's gone. What we're seeing right now is like someone addicted to debt: During the bad times they rack up debt, but during the good times they rack up debt too because they have no reason to feel the pain of the spending they want to do if they can just pass it off until tomorrow.
If you actually don't like subsidizing the capitalist class, then all this is obvious. Handing massive amounts of money to the capitalist class because they lend you money is just making people who do have money richer. My investments in that regard have been doing great, which is good for me but bad for western civilization.
One of the sleights of hand used in the 21st century is "Debt to GDP". The debt can grow forever, but if the economy keeps growing number goes down even though it isn't really. That sounds great, as long as economic growth continues to rise forever. For advocates of degrowth, or for people ringing alarm bells about the current unavoidable demographic collapse, it's a rationalization that works until it stops working: You can take crystal meth to work harder and make more money and rationalize that you're not spending more on meth as a % of your income, but if you lose your job suddenly you're spending tons of money on meth compared to your income and you're addicted to meth.
An example of this is Japan. Japan was said to have been in a "lost decade".... 20 years ago. Structurally, Japan looked super-rich because they spent so much money through debt, but now they're levered up on debt and they can't solve the problem because their demographics won't let them magically grow.
1. You take out a loan, you have a plan to pay back the loan in your lifetime. If you take out a loan and never intend to pay it back, you're selling your kids into slavery. Many such cases.
2. Never "privatize" public goods. If a private investor wants to make a thing, they can pay to make a thing.
3. Public debt for public goods, not consumption. The past decade has seen trillions of dollars of public debt we're never going to pay back that was spent on direct payments to businesses and individuals solely for consumption.
Unfortunately, these three points mean most public debt violates my principles.
People will make arguments that intergenerational debt is ok because it's important to the economy. As I consider intergenerational debt (particularly of either consumption spending or of public goods that are then sold to the private sector) as slavery, then the same argument applied for slavery proper -- people didn't want to give up the institution of slavery because it was important to certain economies.
Now perhaps you might go "But how are we going to manage macroeconomic swings?" -- and I'd answer that if you really want that, then there's only one real way: A sovereign wealth fund that is built up in the good times and drawn down in the bad times. You pay as you go. The benefit of this is that you only really want to draw down that fund if you need to, and once it's gone it's gone. What we're seeing right now is like someone addicted to debt: During the bad times they rack up debt, but during the good times they rack up debt too because they have no reason to feel the pain of the spending they want to do if they can just pass it off until tomorrow.
If you actually don't like subsidizing the capitalist class, then all this is obvious. Handing massive amounts of money to the capitalist class because they lend you money is just making people who do have money richer. My investments in that regard have been doing great, which is good for me but bad for western civilization.
One of the sleights of hand used in the 21st century is "Debt to GDP". The debt can grow forever, but if the economy keeps growing number goes down even though it isn't really. That sounds great, as long as economic growth continues to rise forever. For advocates of degrowth, or for people ringing alarm bells about the current unavoidable demographic collapse, it's a rationalization that works until it stops working: You can take crystal meth to work harder and make more money and rationalize that you're not spending more on meth as a % of your income, but if you lose your job suddenly you're spending tons of money on meth compared to your income and you're addicted to meth.
An example of this is Japan. Japan was said to have been in a "lost decade".... 20 years ago. Structurally, Japan looked super-rich because they spent so much money through debt, but now they're levered up on debt and they can't solve the problem because their demographics won't let them magically grow.
@Tactical congrats on the release of your latest entry in the Blade of the Betrayer series. Just saw the pre-order dropped for me today.
Don't worry though, you're still allowed to hate the minority Catholics who keep getting their churches burned down.
If someone tries to murder you with a gun in America, just say no.
In America, murdering someone with a firearm is a crime, and therefore they will be forced to stop or risk breaking the law.
In America, murdering someone with a firearm is a crime, and therefore they will be forced to stop or risk breaking the law.
The neo-assyrian empire bragged about having some captured men grind their family's bones into dust in the carvings they made.
The final result was that the rest of the region banded together to shut down that empire.
A lot of the time you see that with aggressive ideologies. You think violence will help, but it isn't as effective as you'd hope over time.
The final result was that the rest of the region banded together to shut down that empire.
A lot of the time you see that with aggressive ideologies. You think violence will help, but it isn't as effective as you'd hope over time.
Not to mention, most people who talk about how bad racism is today are usually the most racist, and explicitly white supremacist, people you'll ever meet.
It's a word that is code for something entirely different from what the dictionary or most rational people would tell you.
It's a word that is code for something entirely different from what the dictionary or most rational people would tell you.
I bought Falcon 3.0 on GOG, it comes with Falcon 4.0 as an extra (for some reason).
So here's something pretty crazy: Falcon 4.0 being licensed and installed on your PC will let you run Falcon BMS, a super updated mod of the game. It's 17GB to download and supports features Falcon 4.0 definitely never expected including stuff like VR and fully 3d cockpits.
So here's something pretty crazy: Falcon 4.0 being licensed and installed on your PC will let you run Falcon BMS, a super updated mod of the game. It's 17GB to download and supports features Falcon 4.0 definitely never expected including stuff like VR and fully 3d cockpits.
I find that Jon St John in his later renditions of Duke Nukem spends a lot more time up in a higher register than he does in the original Duke Nukem 3D. Even in Manhattan project there are a lot of lines where he's an octave are too higher than Duke Nukem usually resided in. A little bit of it is like, he's a serious character who says funny things in Duke Nukem 3d, but later on he becomes a joke character.
I feel like the original joke was that he was dead serious about everything that he said and did, and he really was trying to do his best to save the world. It's a later renditions are more like Groucho Marx pretending to be Duke Nukem. The tone of his voice rises and you can almost feel him waggling his eyebrows at a punchline.
I feel like the original joke was that he was dead serious about everything that he said and did, and he really was trying to do his best to save the world. It's a later renditions are more like Groucho Marx pretending to be Duke Nukem. The tone of his voice rises and you can almost feel him waggling his eyebrows at a punchline.
Martin DeCoder is a great youtuber that shows how people use language in ways intended to let them say things they don't believe without dealing with too much cognitive backlash. his channel even shows that people you'd think have no morality whatsoever like serial killers use these language tricks to defuse their own lies.
https://www.youtube.com/@martindecoder
https://www.youtube.com/@martindecoder
This morning I saw this posted, and I found it interesting as a masterwork in delivering multiple messages depending whether you are in the in-group being targeted or the out group not being targeted.
Let's look at the rhetorical methods used in this image, and specifically why individuals may end up reading it with a much different message than it facially suggests.
"the assassination" -- passive voice, it just did itself! His neck started bleeding because an assassination happened! Just like how it rained last week. "We should condemn the act" huh, so are you going to or are you just saying you should, like how I really should exercise or not eat that extra slice of cake? It seems to me that this post does not actually condemn the assassination.
A second heinous act besides the assassination isn't even mentioned, that individuals witnessing a heinous assassination were celebrating it, justifying it, or calling for more pointed assassination attempts towards further political enemies.
Meanwhile, "the maga response" -- in the active voice, apparently didn't just happen on its own, it had a person who did it, and a political movement who did it. And rather than just saying that it should be condemned, this post does in fact condemn it.
The way that this post distances itself from political assassinations while clinging desperately to the reaction to the reaction to political assassinations is damning. Assassinating a political opponent is not an action one takes but something like the weather, and it is a thing that should be condemned but won't be. The people who see that assassination and cheer for it or call for more aren't even mentioned, because it is not even worth discussing. However, people who call for consequences for the people who are cheering for an assassination which occurred and calling for more assassinations to occur, they are the only ones who will be in fact condemned for their actions.
The underlying message here appears to be "you deserve to die, so die silently".
I will now demonstrate what it might look like to condemn someone on the right-wing side for a terrorist attack: A right wing extremist blew up a Tesla Cybertruck in front of Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. This was an unforgivable act of terrorism. I condemn this man for his stupid selfish actions completely. Nobody on either side of the political spectrum ought to be using political violence to further their ends. Anyone celebrating the attack, either because a right winger died or because they supported the right winger is evil and wrong and I condemn them. However, as is consistent with my worldview as long as no one is breaking any laws they are entitled to their own opinions.
Note that in my demonstration, I named the ideology and I assign the blame for the attack to a specific individual. I directly condemn the attack rather than meekly saying that it is something that should be condemned by someone somewhere, and I also attack people who would celebrate the attack for any reason. Then, like the original post, I point out that people ought to be entitled to their own opinions regardless. My demonstration refers to an actual event that occurred on the 1st of January of this year. It demonstrates the problems with the rhetoric on display here.
Let's look at the rhetorical methods used in this image, and specifically why individuals may end up reading it with a much different message than it facially suggests.
"the assassination" -- passive voice, it just did itself! His neck started bleeding because an assassination happened! Just like how it rained last week. "We should condemn the act" huh, so are you going to or are you just saying you should, like how I really should exercise or not eat that extra slice of cake? It seems to me that this post does not actually condemn the assassination.
A second heinous act besides the assassination isn't even mentioned, that individuals witnessing a heinous assassination were celebrating it, justifying it, or calling for more pointed assassination attempts towards further political enemies.
Meanwhile, "the maga response" -- in the active voice, apparently didn't just happen on its own, it had a person who did it, and a political movement who did it. And rather than just saying that it should be condemned, this post does in fact condemn it.
The way that this post distances itself from political assassinations while clinging desperately to the reaction to the reaction to political assassinations is damning. Assassinating a political opponent is not an action one takes but something like the weather, and it is a thing that should be condemned but won't be. The people who see that assassination and cheer for it or call for more aren't even mentioned, because it is not even worth discussing. However, people who call for consequences for the people who are cheering for an assassination which occurred and calling for more assassinations to occur, they are the only ones who will be in fact condemned for their actions.
The underlying message here appears to be "you deserve to die, so die silently".
I will now demonstrate what it might look like to condemn someone on the right-wing side for a terrorist attack: A right wing extremist blew up a Tesla Cybertruck in front of Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. This was an unforgivable act of terrorism. I condemn this man for his stupid selfish actions completely. Nobody on either side of the political spectrum ought to be using political violence to further their ends. Anyone celebrating the attack, either because a right winger died or because they supported the right winger is evil and wrong and I condemn them. However, as is consistent with my worldview as long as no one is breaking any laws they are entitled to their own opinions.
Note that in my demonstration, I named the ideology and I assign the blame for the attack to a specific individual. I directly condemn the attack rather than meekly saying that it is something that should be condemned by someone somewhere, and I also attack people who would celebrate the attack for any reason. Then, like the original post, I point out that people ought to be entitled to their own opinions regardless. My demonstration refers to an actual event that occurred on the 1st of January of this year. It demonstrates the problems with the rhetoric on display here.
They're on the verge of a serious debt crisis, so it makes sense to stock up on hard assets before defaulting.
I find that AIs often tell you something isn't true when it's too recent.
For months after Mark Carney's liberals won a minority government in Canada, Chatgpt told me that it was a hypothetical and obviously wasn't true every time I brought it up.
For months after Mark Carney's liberals won a minority government in Canada, Chatgpt told me that it was a hypothetical and obviously wasn't true every time I brought it up.
When you think about the fact that Cathode Ray Tubes were so mass produced that virtually every home had one and many had more than one, it's kind of crazy to think of.
"oh the problem is that teachers don't make enough money"
What happens when teachers make enough money:
What happens when teachers make enough money:
I saw a question recently: Did the boomers destroy college, and do universities have a duty to ensure people can get jobs after graduating their programs?
The answer must be: Realistically, buyer beware.
It doesn't really make sense that universities end up as glorified a job programs. If you get a 4-year degree, most of the classes you're paying for aren't even related to your field.
Until the postmodern age after the world wars, University wasn't intended to be a job training center. It was a fancy school where people with a bunch of extra money would go to play around learning about things that they were interested in. Virtually no jobs on Earth required a university degree. Postmodern bureaucratic norms ended up turning everything into a policy or procedure. Companies stopped training on the job.
Did the boomers do this? It's a tempting narrative to go with, but the reality is world wars represented the end of the modernist era. Before the beginning of World war I, there's been 99 years of relative peace following the Napoleonic wars after the 1815 conference of Vienna. This extended peace had convinced the Western world that the modernist way of looking at the world, rational and logical, objective and Grand, was the correct way of looking at the world. They thought that they had ended war, since for centuries before that there was almost non-stop war. The first world war shattered that illusion, and the first postmodern thinkers were born, but they didn't have total control of the society yet. The second world war, that's what ended up ultimately breaking the modernist project all together.
I think it's important we treat the boomers as what they actually were: People who did get to experience the best times, but who came of age into a decline, much like many millennials who came of age into the 2008 financial crisis.
I'm working on an about this for my third book, effectively what existed as liberal democracy before the world wars and after was not the same thing. Before, government spending as percent of GDP was 3 to 5%. Afterwards, it was never less than 30 to 50%, and in some cases it was a high 60%. This included things like funding for universities which previously had to take care of things with private funding, but it also included funding for certifications and other regulations which forced people into having University degrees for certain jobs.
It's easy to blame the boomers for this, but remember even as late as the 1970s, they may have been adults but that didn't mean that they were in charge. A lot of what happened around that time happened when their parents were in charge, or even to a lesser extent their grandparents.
You can see who was actually in charge of things based on who was the president. The first baby boomer president was Clinton, meaning that the postmodern bureaucratic order was completely and totally in place by the time the boomer generation was in charge. Offshoring was already fully established. The hollowing out of the rust belt had long since begun to occur.
One of the things that led to the university system being the way it is today will be the 1944 GI Bill. It's primary recipients would have been the greatest generation who are returning home from the world wars. This would have been the moment that universities stopped being a finishing school for the elite and began being a vocational training center. This was explicitly because after the first World war a giant horde of trained Killers descended on Washington to demand post-war benefits.
You might want to blame the greatest generation then, since they were in charge for a lot of this. Arguably, the 1944 GI Bill wouldn't have been put in by the greatest generation either. It would have been put in by their parents, the ones who fought World war I and the ones who would have been a charge during the world wars. If I had to guess, I'd say that they remembered what happened having all of those soldiers coming home after World war 1, and they wanted to try to prevent the mass suffering that demobilization had caused. Although many of the things that were done after World war II ended up having negative repercussions, I really have to give credit that they were in a lot of cases shockingly clever and humane.
And I will say that even early millennials or late Gen X we're already being warned that they better choose their majors carefully. I distinctly remember sitting down watching Saturday morning cartoons and the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air came on, and they had an entire episode dedicated to the idea that if you're going to go to university you better very carefully choose your major because you're not going to be able to just party and have an easy life afterwards. I also remember kids in the Hall skit talking about it where there were a bunch of homeless boomers, and they all suggested that they eat their University degrees because that's about all they were useful for.
The answer must be: Realistically, buyer beware.
It doesn't really make sense that universities end up as glorified a job programs. If you get a 4-year degree, most of the classes you're paying for aren't even related to your field.
Until the postmodern age after the world wars, University wasn't intended to be a job training center. It was a fancy school where people with a bunch of extra money would go to play around learning about things that they were interested in. Virtually no jobs on Earth required a university degree. Postmodern bureaucratic norms ended up turning everything into a policy or procedure. Companies stopped training on the job.
Did the boomers do this? It's a tempting narrative to go with, but the reality is world wars represented the end of the modernist era. Before the beginning of World war I, there's been 99 years of relative peace following the Napoleonic wars after the 1815 conference of Vienna. This extended peace had convinced the Western world that the modernist way of looking at the world, rational and logical, objective and Grand, was the correct way of looking at the world. They thought that they had ended war, since for centuries before that there was almost non-stop war. The first world war shattered that illusion, and the first postmodern thinkers were born, but they didn't have total control of the society yet. The second world war, that's what ended up ultimately breaking the modernist project all together.
I think it's important we treat the boomers as what they actually were: People who did get to experience the best times, but who came of age into a decline, much like many millennials who came of age into the 2008 financial crisis.
I'm working on an about this for my third book, effectively what existed as liberal democracy before the world wars and after was not the same thing. Before, government spending as percent of GDP was 3 to 5%. Afterwards, it was never less than 30 to 50%, and in some cases it was a high 60%. This included things like funding for universities which previously had to take care of things with private funding, but it also included funding for certifications and other regulations which forced people into having University degrees for certain jobs.
It's easy to blame the boomers for this, but remember even as late as the 1970s, they may have been adults but that didn't mean that they were in charge. A lot of what happened around that time happened when their parents were in charge, or even to a lesser extent their grandparents.
You can see who was actually in charge of things based on who was the president. The first baby boomer president was Clinton, meaning that the postmodern bureaucratic order was completely and totally in place by the time the boomer generation was in charge. Offshoring was already fully established. The hollowing out of the rust belt had long since begun to occur.
One of the things that led to the university system being the way it is today will be the 1944 GI Bill. It's primary recipients would have been the greatest generation who are returning home from the world wars. This would have been the moment that universities stopped being a finishing school for the elite and began being a vocational training center. This was explicitly because after the first World war a giant horde of trained Killers descended on Washington to demand post-war benefits.
You might want to blame the greatest generation then, since they were in charge for a lot of this. Arguably, the 1944 GI Bill wouldn't have been put in by the greatest generation either. It would have been put in by their parents, the ones who fought World war I and the ones who would have been a charge during the world wars. If I had to guess, I'd say that they remembered what happened having all of those soldiers coming home after World war 1, and they wanted to try to prevent the mass suffering that demobilization had caused. Although many of the things that were done after World war II ended up having negative repercussions, I really have to give credit that they were in a lot of cases shockingly clever and humane.
And I will say that even early millennials or late Gen X we're already being warned that they better choose their majors carefully. I distinctly remember sitting down watching Saturday morning cartoons and the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air came on, and they had an entire episode dedicated to the idea that if you're going to go to university you better very carefully choose your major because you're not going to be able to just party and have an easy life afterwards. I also remember kids in the Hall skit talking about it where there were a bunch of homeless boomers, and they all suggested that they eat their University degrees because that's about all they were useful for.
One source tells me the tweets are fake, but I don't care -- the message can be true even if the source is wrong.
For each person I'd like to play them a tiktok from their side defending cancel culture. "It's accountability culture" "don't be a Nazi" "they're a private company" and so on.