|
Pembroke Fuse posted:They do have prices, but those prices aren't reflective of demand or in many cases of anything. In a centrally-planned economy, the base price can start with the inputs and then what... how do you estimate subjective demand prior to selling a single a unit? Or even while selling any number of units when you're underproducing? The base price, proportional to the amount of labor expended to create the item, is it. You set production (estimate demand) based on sales for previous periods plus enough to keep a reserve fund. If you're underproducing and your reserves are completely depleted you can still estimate based on the trends before the reserves were depleted, plus the cause of such a drastic increase in demand is probably some newsworthy event which could help with estimating how many more units you need to produce. Pembroke Fuse posted:How do you know the difference between people not buying a product because it is shoddy versus because they don't need it? How do you know people are buying a product in droves despite the fact that it's shoddy, because there are no alternatives available? By making the planning process democratic, so that feedback from the public on how to improve could be implemented. Under capitalism people just have to wait for someone to start making a non-lovely product for this to happen. Pembroke Fuse posted:How do you estimate demand for something that hasn't been invented yet (i.e. potential demand for improved technology, goods, etc)? All sorts of ways. If it's improved machinery then you estimate how many would be needed based on the number of units of old machinery still in use, taking into account the new level of productivity. If it's some new consumer product, like a new video game console, you could do something like kickstarter where you'd need a certain number of backers before the project would be approved, which could then be used to estimate how many units to create at first. Pembroke Fuse posted:While it's true that inelastic demand is largely predictable (you need about 2000 calories and at least 1500ml of water to survive), elastic demand is much harder to estimate. I guess you could repeatedly poll the population, but we know from a variety of studies that polls don't actually reflect preferences in a variety of instances. Ultimately, there is no decent mechanism yet developed of estimating demand without some kind of free-market mechanic. The history of the USSR pretty much proves this. Prices even for basic goods like meat and eggs were largely political symbols. When the public grumbled, the price of meat went down, when the state felt it could raise the price, it did so. These were free-floating prices. Without competing products it was impossible to determine what was driving demand and how it was to be qualified. I'm not going to argue about what the USSR did or did not prove about the viability of planned economies because that would be super boring and I doubt either of us actually knows enough about that situation to draw any lessons from it. Pembroke Fuse posted:There are a lot of flaws with how demand actually resolves itself in the free market. It can be manipulated, it can be unreasonable, it can drive pointless consumption. However, the ability to compare demand for two very similar products or across dissimilar products is a very powerful tool (A/B testing, if you will) that pretty much doesn't exist in centrally planned economies. It is a significant part of why each of these economies eventually fell to consumerist revolutions. If you want to avoid the same for whatever future society you'd like to build, this is something important to work out. Consumerist revolutions? Lol. Jizz Festival fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Sep 27, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:By making the planning process democratic, so that feedback from the public on how to improve could be implemented. Under capitalism people just have to wait for someone to start making a non-lovely product for this to happen. This is literally the function of marketing, so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw except that a planned economy is going to be way less efficient at this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Boon posted:This is literally the function of marketing, so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw except that a planned economy is going to be way less efficient at this. The distinction is that the process in initiated by consumers themselves, not by marketers or entrepreneurs. A lack of efficiency isn't a given unless you look at "democratic process" and assume it's going to be as slow and unwieldy as trying to get legislation through the US congress. edit: Also, if you or anyone else are interested in a far more detailed look at planning an economy, I'd recommend Towards a New Socialism, which you can read for free online http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/ Jizz Festival fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
There's no real reason to deny the fact that overall conditions have improved for the world (which is honestly just what you'd expect as a result of improvements in terms of science/technology, if nothing else), since you don't need to claim they haven't to acknowledge widespread injustice and pointless suffering. Like, an analogy would be a situation where there were 10 people, with 9 living in dire poverty and 1 living in extravagant wealth*. If, over a period of X years, conditions improved by 5% for the first 9 and 1000% for the 1 rich person, you could claim both that conditions have overall improved and that some really hosed up poo poo was going on. That's basically the situation with the world; a tiny minority have enjoyed downright absurd gains in wealth as a result of productivity increases in recent decades, with the rest of the population only benefiting from a disproportionately small fraction of those gains. Obama's statement raises eyebrows not because it's wrong (since it isn't), but more because it's hard to think of a reasonable motive for wanting to emphasize such a thing. Obviously it's impossible to get inside Obama's head, but from my personal experience knowing a bunch of well-off liberals, most of them genuinely believe things are fine and on the right track. When they hear about the economic recovery, they unironically think things have "returned to normal" and that the recent economic downturn was no different from past economic downturns. This isn't to say they don't realize problems exist, but there's no real sense of urgency and they seem to believe that they can be solved without any dramatic changes to the status quo. *These numbers aren't connected to any real numbers, they're just to illustrate the point edit: As a side note, the one thing I'm willing to give international capitalism some credit for is the fact that full-fledged wars between powerful nations seem to be a thing of the past. Obviously this doesn't prevent extremely harmful conflicts altogether, but a conflict between major nations that experience significant trade between one another is unlikely. Of course, all this could easily change in the future as things continue to destabilize due to global warming caused by the same aforementioned capitalism, so it's a little earlier to call it a total win. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:He may very soon get to place blocks on federal court judge nominees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:The distinction is that the process in initiated by consumers themselves, not by marketers or entrepreneurs. A lack of efficiency isn't a given unless you look at "democratic process" and assume it's going to be as slow and unwieldy as trying to get legislation through the US congress. An entrepreneur is literally a consumer who grasps an opportunity for improving on a shoddy product or filling a needs gap. It's the most direct engagement possible. I don't see how a 'Democratic process' of advocating a central planner (which, again, a marketer has a vested interest in 'pulling' this kind of information) is in any way more efficient. Boon fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's telling that you have such an Amero-centric view on the middle east that the position I'm coming at you from isn't even on your radar, so you just lump it in with FOX News. I don't support the Iraq war, and I can't recall any people like Hassan I've spoken to who do either. Rather, they have the full context of the debate, and you only have a piece. They know what Trump and some of the more hateful neocons stand for, and they know it's bad. But unlike you, they have to suffer under the dictatorships you nonchalantly ignore. They feel the pain you can simply handwave away. For them it's not that easy. They have to fight, and they need allies, so they have no choice but to work for something better. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place. But from your vantage point, all you see is a rock, no pun intended. I served in Iraq and met the people who lived under Saddam. I understand that desperation and oppression can make anything, even an invasion by a colonial power and the looting of the country by international capital seem has to be better than what's happening now. That doesn't mean it is. Syrians aren't a hivemind, this guy doesn't speak for every single Syrian and even if he did that still doesn't make him automatically right about what the consequences will be. Hide behind him all you want to put a fake humanitarian gloss on your war fantasies, what you're doing is no different from white conservatives claiming that Sheriff Clark proves that black people just love getting murdered by cops. Yall neocons trotted out these exact arguments 15 years ago: "Iraqis love being bombed just listen to my Iraqi friend here" (and bullshit on you never supporting the Iraq War, I don't believe that for a hot second lol when every other post of yours might as well be McCain's Bomb Iran song). I called your arguments against the Iran deal Fox News quality because that's exactly what they were, regurgitated Hannity blather about Obama funding his terrorism, which you did not get from your imaginary Syrian friends and which no one who knows anything about the region would say but to be fair to you I think you knew you were lying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Boon posted:An entrepreneur is literally a consumer who grasps an opportunity for improving on a shoddy product or filling a needs gap. It's the most direct engagement possible. I don't see how a 'Democratic process' of advocating a central planner (which, again, a marketer has a vested interest in 'pulling' this kind of information) is in any way more efficient. It's not necessarily any more efficient, in terms of how long it would take to bring out a new product. I would say that the result would probably be more representative of what people actually want, though. An individual entrepreneur's ideas might not line up with what most people want, but they're the person who has the resources and the will to start a new venture. They may also change things further from what most people want to increase profitability.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:It's not necessarily any more efficient, in terms of how long it would take to bring out a new product. I would say that the result would probably be more representative of what people actually want, though. An individual entrepreneur's ideas might not line up with what most people want, but they're the person who has the resources and the will to start a new venture. They may also change things further from what most people want to increase profitability. Not snarky, but what background learning do you have of marketing, business strategy, or even just business as a daily operation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Boon posted:Not snarky, but what background learning do you have of marketing, business strategy, or even just business? I studied accounting for two years before quitting because I couldn't stand the ridiculous business school propaganda any longer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Moore's problem is he literally doesn't believe in the rule of law, like he's explicitly said so, he believes the bible is a greater authority than the Constitution and that the Bible is the supreme law of the land over everything. And by that he means his personal interpretation of the bible. Wait I thought Republicans abolished blue slips now that they're in charge and have the opportunity to stack the courts with all the vacancies they've kept open since 2014. Fake edit: okay no they haven't yet, but McConnell has suggested it. Democrats probably would unilaterally honor them when they're in charge tho, just like they want to restore the Supreme Court filibuster so it will only ever be used against them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I studied accounting for two years before quitting because I couldn't stand the ridiculous business school propaganda any longer. Do you have experience in a corporate setting? Accounting is an arbitrary structure derived of a requirement to consistently measure performance across wide-ranging markets. It's fundamental to a modern business but in and of itself it's like knowing math but not how to apply it to solve problems. Two years of accounting is basically enough to get a bare bones understanding of what the different financial reports are and how they come to be. What I'm trying to get at is that you clearly understand (or at least better than I) your source material. However, you do not display a keen awareness of how business works today, that I can tell. Boon fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I served in Iraq and met the people who lived under Saddam. I understand that desperation and oppression can make anything, even an invasion by a colonial power and the looting of the country by international capital seem has to be better than what's happening now. That doesn't mean it is. Syrians aren't a hivemind, this guy doesn't speak for every single Syrian and even if he did that still doesn't make him automatically right about what the consequences will be. Hide behind him all you want to put a fake humanitarian gloss on your war fantasies, what you're doing is no different from white conservatives claiming that Sheriff Clark proves that black people just love getting murdered by cops. Nobody said anything about an invasion. You made that up, like just about everything else in this post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
Boon posted:Do you have experience in a corporate setting? I've never worked in an office, if that's what you're getting at. If you think I'm mistaken somewhere I would appreciate it if you would address the disagreement directly instead of essentially saying "you don't get how business works."
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I've never worked in an office, if that's what you're getting at. If you think I'm mistaken somewhere I would appreciate it if you would address the disagreement directly instead of essentially saying "you don't get how business works." You're talking in broad generalizations so it's hard to nail anything down specifically without immediately getting a counter example on a broad basis. But let's take the following high-level ideas which prompted this: quote:An individual entrepreneur's ideas might not line up with what most people want, but they're the person who has the resources and the will to start a new venture. They may also change things further from what most people want to increase profitability An entrepreneur rarely has the resources, but that's a minor quibble at best. What an entrepreneur does have is an insight into an unmet need in the market, what you would consider 'what most people want'. If they did not there would not be a market and the venture would fail. Changing things woth the implication that there are negative effects on product quality to increase profitability is something very, very different and often a top-level strategic decision. This goes to the heart of differentiation and segmentation. While it's true that this can be the case, it means that there is then again an unmet need in the market which may invite new entrants and thus competition. The producer could also potentially fill that need with a premium product while serving the market unwilling to pay for a premium product with the lower cost less capable product. The point is that in the modern view of business, the customer need lies at the heart of business decisions. The system you describe isn't nearly so rigid or inwardly-focused as you're describing. I'm not clear how you're arriving to your comparative conclusions. Boon fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Boon posted:You're talking in broad generalizations so it's hard to nail anything down specifically without immediately getting a counter example. But let's take the following high-level ideas which prompted this: You're adding all this detail without explaining how it actually changes the situation. Saying that the decision to increase profitability is "different" and that it's a "top-level strategic decision" doesn't seem to be implying that the changes I indicated aren't made. I didn't want to start a central planning debate because they get boring, trying to work out the details of how, exactly, everything would work. In the real world, if we have a socialist revolution, a lot of these details are going to be worked out with trial and error, as not everything that should work in theory is going to work the same in reality. I have no way to prove, conclusively, that things will actually work out, either, so the arguments can go on forever. In the end, it comes down to me believing that we can do better than waking up every day, going to boring jobs, and trying to treasure our precious free time. Many people want out, which I think is the big reason people want to get rich: so they don't have to work a job they hate. I support a planned economy because it's the only way out that I see for everyone. We could reduce the working week to as small as possible while maintaining a comfortable lifestyle for everyone. I can easily imagine a much better world than the one we have today. To think it's impossible to do better than what we have now shows an extreme lack of imagination, in my opinion. I think it's sad that people actually pride themselves on thinking that these things are impossible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:You're adding all this detail without explaining how it actually changes the situation. Saying that the decision to increase profitability is "different" and that it's a "top-level strategic decision" doesn't seem to be implying that the changes I indicated aren't made. Granted, there doesn't necessarily have to be set prices in a different type of semi-planned economy, any new system doesn't necessarily need to make the same mistakes as the Soviet Union (like Venezuela largely did). You can have floating prices, but simply use internal transfers/taxes as a method of redistribution. If an industry is "not viable," central planners should have the data to tinker with what was happening. Granted, one problem with the NEP is that prices for different goods often went in vastly different directions, but the take away from this (Stalinist central planning) almost certainly went too far in the opposite direction and if anything at the root of all of this is basically an internal central committee dispute from the mid-1920s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Weren't you just saying.Bernie is about to save us all? If you really believe that, then it's great we're 5 years closer. about to? no not at all. he's starting us down the path, and there's a lot of promise in the work he's doing. but in the meantime we have 3 more years of trump to get through (at least) bernie certainly did save us from obamacare repeal, so thanks for that bernie also, it's pretty amazing how you guys keep trying to pretend i hate dems more than republicans
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
I'm sure when somebody throws out a dumb truism like "The world is a better place than ever, y'all" they do so because of an innate desire to blurt out random context free facts, not because they just want people to shut up and give the ruling class the respect they deserve.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
It's about one step above 'There's little children in Klatch you know...'
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Yeah, that's not the argument I'm making. More like... VB takes crappy positions on intervention for reasons that are probably more relatable than we all care to admit. Okay well engage with the neocon if you want to. I'm too old to believe that blithering warmongers have anything worthwhile to say or will ever argue in good faith, or to take part in this ridiculous game of "let's pretend" that we Americans play with discourse where advocating for endless atrocities is just polite cigar room conversation, but frankly saying outright that atrocities are what they are is just so rude gosh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/tax-reform-trump-work-with-democrats/index.html So apparently trump is threatening to work with dems if republicans can't repeal healthcare The negotiated plan that schumer brought up a week or so ago was referenced, and trump apparently really likes the idea of copper plans and expanded waivers for pieces of ppaca In any case, it's time for centrists to show what they're worth. If they help trump gut ppaca piecemeal with poo poo like copper plans then they're worthless. The only deal they should accept is trump maintaining ppaca unscathed, no strings attached
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
Why would anyone even want copper plans, the primary complaint with bronze plans is how expensive it is to use them because of how much cost they push onto the consumer. No one who buys a copper plan will ever be able to afford to use it, you're just forcing the poor to throw money into a burning dumpster every month while insurance companies rake it in knowing they'll never have to pay out because the deductible keeps the sick away from the doctor...oh now I see why corporate dems love it. E: Notice also that "I'll pull CSR funding, believe me" was always an empty threat and there was no reason to offer to make the ACA worse in response to it unless you wanted to do that anyway and needed an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/tax-reform-trump-work-with-democrats/index.html Yeah, there is really no reason to negotiate or give concessions unless they (or their "backers") wanted those concessions in the first place. The GOP clearly doesn't have leverage here. As I said, I was always skeptical that a GOP plan would pass if it meant less funding for health insurance companies...but if a plan gives them "more flexibility" it certainly that is a different issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay well engage with the neocon if you want to. I'm too old to believe that blithering warmongers have anything worthwhile to say or will ever argue in good faith, or to take part in this ridiculous game of "let's pretend" that we Americans play with discourse where advocating for endless atrocities is just polite cigar room conversation, but frankly saying outright that atrocities are what they are is just so rude gosh. You have 0 issue with atrocities if it's not Americans committing them. You only see Iraq, whereas I see Iraq and Rwanda. That's the difference between you and I, and why you don't have any moral qualms sentencing people to death by turning your back on them while simultaneously thinking of yourself as Gandhi. Certainly you didn't have much issue with the Assad regimes bombing campaign that made it impossible for IDP's to find shelter anywhere inside the country, that could've easily been prevented through a no fly zone. But those people's lives are less valuable because they can't be held up as a political prop to rant about Amerikkka. Maybe when you get a little older you'll understand that morality doesn't just conveniently align itself with whatever forums poster vitalsigns thinks is right at any given time. And hell, maybe you'll even get over dick jokes. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
it's going to be 90 degrees to day in puerto rico almost half of the population is still without water
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You have 0 issue with atrocities if it's not Americans committing them. You only see Iraq, whereas I see Iraq and Rwanda. That's the difference between you and I, and why you don't have any moral qualms sentencing people to death by turning your back on them while simultaneously thinking of yourself as Gandhi. Certainly you didn't have much issue with the Assad regimes bombing campaign that made it impossible for IDP's to find shelter anywhere inside the country, that could've easily been prevented through a no fly zone. But those people's lives are less valuable because they can't be held up as a political prop to rant about Amerikkka. Maybe when you get a little older you'll understand that morality doesn't just conveniently align itself with whatever forums poster vitalsigns thinks is right at any given time. And hell, maybe you'll even get over dick jokes. So obviously the answer is whenever bad things are happening anywhere in the world, you go there and shoot and bomb people until the bad things stop happening. And also take all the valuable things for safekeeping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:it's going to be 90 degrees to day in puerto rico How have we not deployed military logistics to help or have we already?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:So obviously the answer is whenever bad things are happening anywhere in the world, you go there and shoot and bomb people until the bad things stop happening. And also take all the valuable things for safekeeping. It seems like the solution in Rwanda would have to massively reinforce the UN peacekeeping mission there not to bomb and invade the country (which would be the only way it could parallel Iraq). We should have done something in Rwanda...by working with existing multi-national institutions, one of which (the UN) which already had a (vastly outmanned) force on the ground. Oh yeah, and it might actually help if the US paid its dues to the UN (just saying). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You have 0 issue with atrocities if it's not Americans committing them. You only see Iraq, whereas I see Iraq and Rwanda. That's the difference between you and I, and why you don't have any moral qualms sentencing people to death by turning your back on them while simultaneously thinking of yourself as Gandhi. Certainly you didn't have much issue with the Assad regimes bombing campaign that made it impossible for IDP's to find shelter anywhere inside the country, that could've easily been prevented through a no fly zone. But those people's lives are less valuable because they can't be held up as a political prop to rant about Amerikkka. Maybe when you get a little older you'll understand that morality doesn't just conveniently align itself with whatever forums poster vitalsigns thinks is right at any given time. And hell, maybe you'll even get over dick jokes. Ah there it is "you don't want to bomb more countries, you loooooove Saddam" I could play neocon bingo. So was it a good day for you sexually when Manning leaked that collateral murder video? Or can you only get off when the videos of dying Iraqis are coming to you live on CNN. I assume the latter since you're always hungry for a new war but maybe you just like variety? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah there it is "you don't want to bomb more countries, you loooooove Saddam" I could play neocon bingo. You could just type "There is no such thing as a just war". It's a poo poo take, but that's the argument you're trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Team America was wrong in assuming liberals were actually opposed to the US playing World Police.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Team America was wrong in assuming liberals were actually opposed to the US playing World Police. What kind of police are we talking about here? TV Police that you trust to do things "the right way" or like... St Louis beat cops who execute unarmed black people at alarming rates?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:How have we not deployed military logistics to help https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/26/politics/us-military-response-puerto-rico-hurricane-maria/index.html Based on this, there might be a reason for not sending foreign ships in yet. It sounds like the ports and airfields are in pretty bad shape and priority #1 is getting them up and running so other relief efforts can be deployed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:You could just type "There is no such thing as a just war". It's a poo poo take, but that's the argument you're trying to make. Ah yes, if I don't want to bomb the middle east forever, I must want to disband the military, the hottest of takes. There might be just wars, idk, but whatever the criteria might be our imperial adventures in the Middle East don't qualify my brother.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes, if I don't want to bomb the middle east forever, I must want to disband the military, the hottest of takes. I didn't say that they did, but the conflict in Rawanda is one we never even got involved in and it seems like Volkerball was lamenting that. Stopping a genocide is a "just cause", and it seems like the situation in Syria has risen to that level, but we're not helping to stop the active genocide in SE Asia either. Indeed, this president seems reluctant to use the US Military for anything but his personal feuds with hostile foreign saber-rattlers. A humanitarian cause means probably taking in refugees and this president doesn't want any more dern ferners takin' our jerbs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes, if I don't want to bomb the middle east forever, I must want to disband the military, the hottest of takes. Do you see no possible situation under which US military intervention is justified? - Humanitarian crisis? - Genocide? - Countering intervention by other foreign powers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
So how hosed is Puerto Rico this morning?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes, if I don't want to bomb the middle east forever, I must want to disband the military, the hottest of takes. Our attempts at healthcare barely qualify as such, but nobody ever tries to use that to say we shouldn't do healthcare anymore, because they would be the ones doing the suffering if that happened. They understand they have to demand better. It's only with foreign policy where isolation is somehow portrayed as the only alternative to bad policy. Can't lose if you don't play. Well guess what, there's a lot of nations out there who want to play imperialist hegemon, and most of them are far less accountable to their people than we are. If you oppose action in every case, that doesn't rid the world of international actors committing atrocities. It just takes the US out of the equation, leaving the solution up to people who are often times more brutal and more unaccountable than our government is. We can oust George Bush when he commits atrocities in Iraq. But Putin did the same poo poo in Chechnya and he's still in office today. And he'll be there 20 years from now doing the same poo poo, while Bush will be a relic from an almost forgotten era. But that's not relevant for you, because all you want to be able to do is wash your hands of these types of crises, not prevent them But you can't, of course. Inaction is its own form of action, and as we've seen in Syria, Rwanda, and elsewhere, it can come with its own set of consequences. So you can sit here and blindly preach the dogma of non-intervention, and dishonestly claim anyone who calls you out on your bullshit is a neo-hitler jacks off to dead babies man all you like, but at the end of the day, you're just a moronic ideologue. And it's transparent as hell. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Do you see no possible situation under which US military intervention is justified? Which country should be invaded next - Iran or Korea?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:42
|
|