eyeroll.gif

I don’t understand, sue NVIDIA for what? Turning a blind eye to smuggling made NVIDIA shareholders money.

I don’t think you need the Ukraine situation to derive the reasons for Trump bombing Iran. Israel has material reason to want to turn Iran into its puppet state or a failed state. That allows it to take more adjacent territory and/or resources without resistance. Trump entered the war because he’s paid handsomely by pro-Israel interests to do Israel’s bidding, and Mossad likely also has dirt on him. I think that is enough to explain what happened. Especially given the enormous military base damage sustained by the US. They didn’t have to take any of that to cut off air defences from Ukraine.

We should only retire at 60 after we figured it all out, shouldn’t we?

But wait, do retirees use up more natural resources than working 60 year-olds or less? Working people need all the resources retirees need plus resources needed to perform work. They’d get paid more than a pension too which means they’d get to consume more on top of their work-related consumption. And their work would transform more natural resources into commodities. ☠️

Yup, they don’t operate on the material interests of Europe. Don’t know if they operate on vibes (values) or just self-interest that isn’t aligned with the majority of the European population. Either way they didn’t take the actions they could have taken to hit the brakes on US-Israel’s war on Iran and thus save Europe from the impending economic damage. They could have threatened to cut off Israel from the EU market. They could have threatened to stop enforcing sanctions on Iran. Instead they kept parroting US and Iarael’s bullshit. The increased cost of living is going great.

Credit where it’s due - they didn’t actively join the bombing party.

It’s your assumption that it’ll be WW3. It could easily not be. Conflicts don’t go from zero to WW automatically and certainly. There’s escalation ladders, they go up and down. The US lead multiple wars against Soviet allies during the Cold War that did not trigger a WW. Some pretty horrific like Vietnam. A particularly devastating scenario doesn’t invalidate the argument for China (or anyone) to secure against a less devastating one. One that’s much more likely.

BTW the US-Israel’s illegal war on Iran is an issue for the whole planet.

A world in which earlier this year USA cut off one of China’s oil supply channels - Venezuela - and significantly degraded another - Iran. The USA can cut off oil supply by sea to China the same way Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. It’s not only possible but that’s a standard scenario bith USA and China have been planning around for a long time. So Russia is the unblockable oil supplier that can keep feeding the Chinese manufacturing (and military) machine if the USA decides to use its military aginst China. Something that could happen for a number of reasons. So the “unlimited partnership” with Russia is just China’s government being competent at planning for its population’s security over the long run. This also provides an avenue for resolving the war - China can and probably will exert leverage on Russia - if a peace process that won’t destabilize Russia is proposed. After all (some of) the European and Russian resources going into bombs could instead be going towards buying more Chinese exports.

I mean, it’s both. The productivity gain in farming comes from the inventions of modern tractors, tractor equipment, chemicals, etc. So there’s def ingenuity involved as it’s not trivial to invent those. But of course that steel they’re made of doesn’t come from thin air, neither does the diesel to run them. That’s your basic truth that all commodities come from natural resources transformed by human labour. In it most basic form productivity enhancing tech can increase our ability to transform more natural resources with less labour. I think that’s what your getting at. But that’s not the limit of it. It can and has increased the efficiency of what we get from the same resources. Coal plants today are much more efficient than they used to be a century ago. Typical solar panels today are in the 20-30% efficiency range. They used to be less than half that two decades ago. Neither of those mean we can make unlimited solar or burn infinite coal. But we’re talking a factor of 2 in energy production from the same resourcea that make up a solar panel. If productivity can give us these kinds of natural resource savings in additon to labour savings, I think it’s worth asking where are those savings going. Do they go to children, pensioners, or the 1%. And if it turns out that most of those gains aren’t with with the 99%, we ought to change that, before throwing children or pensioners under the bus. When we get those gains shared between both those classes, if there still isn’t enough, and if we’re stil hurling towards environmental extinction, then we should consider who gets thrown under the bus. And the final crucial bit - if we throw the pensioners under bus today, while leaving the 1% holding the power to overconsume what we produce, there’s little guarantee that what we took from the pensioners would reach the children. Looking at history, the most likely outcome is the 1% is gonna scoop that up too. That’s my thoughts on the matter. 😊

It’s kinda crazy to me that it’s this high.

If you don’t see real usage of foreign capacity decreasing, it’s all bullshit to calm people’s fears down. And they’re very good at marketing bullshit.

For everyone with “Generational conflict” placards at the back of the room:

Pensioners and children (both don’t work) don’t eat bank notes. Working people’s labour creates the food they eat, the buildings they sleep in, the healthcare and education they receive. Today theres significantly fewer working people doing that labour relative to non-working people compared to 40, 50 or 70 years ago. Yet their labour appears to still be almost enough to take care of the pensioners, the children and the metastasizing 1%. How could this be? Why hasn’t the standard of living utterly collapsed for any of these groups? Why are the 1% living better than ever? It’s due to productivity gains. It takes fewer farmers along with machines to produce the same food as 70 years ago. It takes fewer tool and die makers to create the tooling for manufacturing any physical product. It takes fewer people to create the ssme number of school books. Build housing, etc. We need less working people labour to create the same stuff that we used to make 70 years ago. Conversely we can make more stuff with the same labour. This is why we can still support all three non-working groups while having fewer working people relative to non-working people than 70 years ago. And we’re not even done yet - there’s plenty more productivity that can be gained if we need it. There’s no inherent impossibility. There is however one of those groups whose consumption has been rising dramatically, and it’s not the pensioners or the children. The distribution of working people’s labour is a choice. Children will become working people, and then at some point they’ll become non-working pensioners. So there’s inherent solidarity between children and old people. The 1% on the other hand…

Pensioners and children (both don’t work) don’t eat bank notes. Working people’s labour creates the food they eat, the buildings they sleep in, the healthcare and education they receive. Today theres significantly fewer working people doing that labour relative to non-working people compared to 50 years ago. Yet their labour appears to still be almost enough to take care of the pensioners, the children and the metastasizing 1%. How could this be? Why hasn’t the standard of living utterly collapsed for any of these groups? Why are the 1% living better than ever? It’s due to productivity gains. It takes fewer farmers along with machines to produce the same food as 70 years ago. It takes fewer tool and die makers to create the tooling for manufacturing any physical product. It takes fewer people to create the ssme number of school books. Build housing, etc. We need less working people labour to create the same stuff that we used to make 70 years ago. Conversely we can make more stuff with the same labour. This is why we can still support all three non-working groups while having fewer working people relative to non-working people than 70 years ago. There’s no inherent impossibility. There is however one of those groups whose consumption has been rising dramatically, and it’s not the pensioners or the children. The distribution of working people’s labour is a choice. Children will become working people, and then at some point they’ll become non-working pensioners. So there’s inherent solidarity between children and old people.

Reads “panic”

Looks inside:

5%

The weights are heavy. One has to drop them with care.

You’re thinking about the technical ability to do it. I agree 100% there’s avenues to fuck them up. What I doubt is that the Democrats would actually use the tools to do it. I know there’s a few insurgent progressives that would absolutely prosecute the shit out of the hogs. I think they won’t get enough support from the do-nothing corporate Democrats that are paid by the oligarch class. We’ll see tho. I hope they realize that this will get them primaried.

You have higher hopes for justice than I do. I hope you’re right. 😄

People have always had to strike for a fair share. Firms do not pay what is “fair” according to the profits they workers earn them. They pay what’s “fair” in the labour market they get people from. Where “fair” is as low as they can get away with.

After yesterday, this prez admin has no incetive to spend time and money to placate the masses in any way, real or fake. Instead their interest lays in grifting as much as possible in the time they have left, and hurting Americans as much as possible because the pain will be ascribed to the democrats. So there was likely a phone call to Moscow - “Turn the diesel back.”

Hakeem Jeffries made plans with Kushner to squeeze all he can for Israel over the next 2 years before he gets ejected at the primaries.

He won.