|
ORIGINAL GANGSTER posted:heres a daily chart from when the wall was completed on Oct 17. Hmm I wonder why there was a huge spike in migrants just before the completion of the wall, then it returned to normal levels after that
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
Maybe if you narrow the scope and give it a minute by minute breakdown without thinking it through it will make your point
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
I'm pretty certain that the spike in illegal immigrant numbers was do to that whole European Migrant Crisis thing that caused it for every other country around the same time, and not because uneducated Muslims read in the paper that Hungary was building a wall and decided "Hey, we'll never have another chance to get into Hungary! Better leave on our rafts and inflatables NOW!"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Nuke the works and start over with decent, hard-workins Mutant-Americans. Magneto would be an ace at body and fender repair.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I'm more afraid of Hillary than Trump and Putin combined. Those guys fool their idiotic followers into thinking they are strong and their enemies into thinking they are dangerous by acting macho and talking tough. She is the one who benefits from people like them. They serve as her distraction, they justify her means, they give her casus belli. She is probably a decent person, but she won't just do what she thinks is right, she will try to accomplish what she thinks is right by any means necessary, continuing or even escalating the incredibly short sighted tradition of US foreign policy. The foreign policy establishment basically loving hates Obama's guts. Hillary won't touch them because they already distrust her for the e-mail snaffu and because she needs them. If there's anything Clinton sincerely believes in it is that the U.S. imperium is a net good for the world and Obama has greatly harmed it. She probably thinks we can double down in the ME and take much more aggressive, provocative actions against China in the SCS. The militarization of Asia is already speeding right along and Jinping and the defense industry/PLAN want nothing more than someone like Clinton to come in so they can say to their population that the U.S. is trying to contain China and deny it its proper place in the world.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
We in the west should have nuked China before they managed to get any nukes of their own just because they're too large, powerful and ambitious for long-term peaceful cohabitation and the government has concern for the future of human or political rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:We in the west should have nuked China before they managed to get any nukes of their own just because they're too large, powerful and ambitious for long-term peaceful cohabitation and the government has concern for the future of human or political rights. you're demented
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:32
|
|
The Saurus posted:We in the west should have nuked China before they managed to get any nukes of their own just because they're too large, powerful and ambitious for long-term peaceful cohabitation and the government has concern for the future of human or political rights. Yeah too bad they didn't preemptively kill millions of people and bring the wrath of the world down upon us on the off chance that it would be politically difficult to deal with China in a few decades
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Yeah, why didn't we nuke our ally during WWII?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
this is how twisted and absurd "socialism" gets in the west, to the point where you can claim to be a socialist but want to kick out immigrants and nuke the most populous socialist state on the planet
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:the only political rights that matter are those of white people
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:We in the west... Your Britishness renders you incapable of understanding Western thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Your Britishness renders you incapable of understanding Western thought. Britain colonized a quarter of the world. A lot of their immigrants are from those colonies. The culture probably gets it just fine, and from both ends of the bayonet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Ragnar34 posted:Britain colonized a quarter of the world. A lot of their immigrants are from those colonies. The culture probably gets it just fine, and from both ends of the bayonet. brits are shits
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:this is how twisted and absurd "socialism" gets in the west, to the point where you can claim to be a socialist but want to kick out immigrants and nuke the most populous socialist state on the planet to be fair ive never seen anyone miss the point of an ideology as hard as the saurus does
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
America is beginning a mass realignment process. Both the new left (Sanders) and the alt right (Trump) support policies of anti-trade and anti-intervention. I feel that this will bring the parties a bit closer together, or possibly even have those aspects absorb into one of the two existing parties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:America is beginning a mass realignment process. agreed and it's caused by the inexorable march of technological progress. Widespread and persistent economic anemia amongst the working and middle classes is caused by three things: globalism, an exploitable underclass (illegals), and technological change. 2 of these things we can fight against in a capitalist system so they are getting all the attention. However it all comes down to technology. Tech is why economic stagnation amongst the plebes is becoming more apparent and tech is why protectionism is just a stopgap measure that will ultimately fail. We are at the beginning of a storm that will change this planet forever and are doing what we can to weather it. Right now you should be either Canadian or a wealthy American. Otherwise the coming times will be difficult for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
if everyone can't leave this gay earth when it dies, no one should
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:America is beginning a mass realignment process. This isn't happening on with the Democrats anytime soon given Hillary's inevitable nomination. She supports outsourcing/free trade and aggressive foreign interventionism. With Trump, we'll see if he can significantly alter the party's platform at the convention. I do recall that cuckservative types such as Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, and most of the GOP (and their donors) still want free trade and a hard cock for foreign nation building/regime change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:55
|
|
Radbot posted:if everyone can't leave this gay earth when it dies, no one should  it's like how you couldn't bring snacks to share in elementary school unless you brought enough for EVERYONE.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Cleanse the World So That All Humanity Fits on the Space Shuttle
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Maximum irony will be achieved this year when Hillary strokes out between the election and the inauguration (probably at Thanksgiving or Christmas), causing her "safe choice" male VP pick to become president.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Globalization's trajectory is (de facto) one-world government in the form of a transnational plutocratic gestalt, a global aristocracy. Oligarchs of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your borders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is. Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior. But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society. For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society. Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?” I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out? It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas. Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.” It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part. Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate. If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption. I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a purecapitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this subforum to be an important public service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Thanks, SMILLENNIALSMILLEN.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Not sure where to post this, but I genuinely have no idea whom to vote for now. Get angry at me all you want, but I'm tired of seeing our jobs shipped overseas and I know the Clinton's were very much a part of that. I'll consider voting for her if she adopts more progressive policies, the DNC fires debbie wasserman schultz, and does some such things. If she continues down the more conservative idealogy she has? Then, no. FuzzySkinner has issued a correction as of 19:49 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Radbot posted:if everyone can't leave this gay earth when it dies, no one should Either all the crabs leave the bucket or none do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Rhukatah posted:Either all the crabs leave the bucket or none do. I pick none. We must contain the disease of sapience, not let it escape and grow. We should do more reasonable things with our time, like screaming our lungs to bloody chunks with disgust at being forced to exist without our consent. Don't vote for Trump though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Nobody please vote for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Not sure where to post this, but I genuinely have no idea whom to vote for now. You never forget your first ♡♡♡
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 10:39
|
|
Ragnar34 posted:Nobody please vote for Trump or Clinton
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
I'm glad we agr -- wait, that's not what I said! I said something different from that. loving mind games all over this forum 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Not sure where to post this, but I genuinely have no idea whom to vote for now. Jobs being "shipped overseas" had nothing, or very little, to do with NAFTA or the Clintons. It is and was a response to the larger process of globalization, which you're not going to reverse through legislative action. Even total isolationism and protectionism won't stop it unless you go full North Korea, thus destroying the US economy entirely. Manufacturing is not coming back and this is not the fault of the government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Jobs being "shipped overseas" had nothing, or very little, to do with NAFTA or the Clintons. It is and was a response to the larger process of globalization, which you're not going to reverse through legislative action. Even total isolationism and protectionism won't stop it unless you go full North Korea, thus destroying the US economy entirely. Manufacturing is not coming back and this is not the fault of the government. All these words and you're still being coy
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Not sure where to post this, but I genuinely have no idea whom to vote for now. Perhaps you should take a closer look at Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2QmClRt9AQ quote:No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must do the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Jobs being "shipped overseas" had nothing, or very little, to do with NAFTA or the Clintons. It is and was a response to the larger process of globalization, which you're not going to reverse through legislative action. Even total isolationism and protectionism won't stop it unless you go full North Korea, thus destroying the US economy entirely. Manufacturing is not coming back and this is not the fault of the government. How do you think globalization as a phenomenon occurred if not through international free trade agreements. Like holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:36
|
|
No Mans Land 5 posted:How do you think globalization as a phenomenon occurred if not through international free trade agreements. Like holy poo poo You're like a hydra. Ban one arm, two rereg in its place.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
No Mans Land 5 posted:How do you think globalization as a phenomenon occurred if not through international free trade agreements. Like holy poo poo Technology still makes international manufacturing cheaper, even without free trade agreements. (Like, China was still taking over huge amounts of manufacturing even before they received most-favored nation trading status.) Unless you start laying down gigantic tariffs to off-set the comparative manufacturing advantage that China has, the jobs are still going overseas. And if you start laying down gigantic tariffs on imported goods, all you're doing is loving over US consumers in exchange for a very small number of jobs. Because wages are higher in the US, our manufacturing sector is highly automated and doesn't employ nearly as many people, even if more things were being made here. (In fact, the manufacturing jobs that are around are having a hard time getting filled because generally they are looking for mechanical engineers with masters degrees). This dream of returning to a 1950s level of US manufacturing is for the left what returning to a 1950s level of public morality is for the right: an impossible pipe dream that, if we were somehow able to make it happen, would actually make things worse for everyone. e_angst has issued a correction as of 15:41 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
The sheer volume of manufacturing in the us in the 50s was a historical anomaly resulting from the fact that it was the only nation with an intact manufacturing sector. Even without advances in transportation, communication, and automation technology, it could never have remained at that level for long as other nations rebuilt manufacturing sectors ravaged by war. The shift towards tertiary and quaternary economic activity only sped up that decline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:17
|
|