/b/ - Random

Anything posted here are autistic works of fiction, only a fool would take them seriously.

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Drawing x size canvas

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images

(9.20 KB 300x175 linux-vs-windows.jpg)
Ignorant pro-capitalist Baby Boomer centrism Anonymous 06/01/2019 (Sat) 19:09:56 [Preview] No. 20761
Just talked with some Baby Boomers who said the best product always wins. And that Bill Gates deserves to own about 70 billion dollars and be the 2nd richest man for the rest of his life. And that when two companies fight, the one that does the most good for the consumer will always win

So they're idealistic morons.

Anonymous 06/01/2019 (Sat) 19:52:05 [Preview] No.20762 del
they're just (((white)))

Anonymous 06/01/2019 (Sat) 22:28:46 [Preview] No.20763 del
it was the best product in the eyes of the people that were actually selling the hardware with windows bundled. it's not like everyone that bought windows from what the early 90s to mid 00s were sold on windows it was just the default package and included (((gratis))) with their purchase.

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 01:20:12 [Preview] No.20764 del
i used to think about it like that i think we need a way to explain it to them with a metaphor. Like linux is like a custom thing like a hotrod or someshit. If you tinker with a guitar and have the stock pickups that can be not ideal. With linux it takes some configuration much like replacing pickups on a guitar is a pain in the ass but something you can get used to in much the same way you can utilize linux to get the most out of your machine and the way now is you can use linux to set up a desktop enviornment that is simular to windows xp-7 but modernized and with workspaces. Workspaces alone im not sure if windows has that yet but the ability to have multipal virtual monitors on one machine is a huge advantage. And with the best product always wins that is true for hardware buggy hard drive companies die off. But I don't see windows thriving what is worrysome is this mobile monopilizations where now even the graphic design is catered towards people on their phones with the three lines as a menu. You install linux to log in and pull up your email they might not even understand that you can install firefox and chrome and browsers they might confuse with desktops. In that case the argument is i am assuming the window manager/desktop environment which can be mimicked like with mint. But all and all it is a slight hassle to learn how to get linux onto a computer via flashdrive or disk. so tell them when they buy a new computer every couple years out of frustration to put linux on the 2nd newest machine and compare it with windows the older machine will (sort of my experiance except with less machines) perform more in your command than the new machine bloated to a halt with windows shitware. And a lot of sort of cracking tools are on windows and a lot of piracy people who release torrents are using windows thats just fucking stupid. It makes sense if you see a lot of ganes being released but other than gaming windows is kind of shit. There is the argument of adobe creative software and media software being best on mac and windows that it true and false. I think flowblade is better than sony vegas and blender is what pixar uses and they probably do it on supercomputers with a unix backend. You can run older versions of fl studio on wine and use VST's on linux audio apps. Ok here is another way to explain it to them. You can use a casio keyboard. Or you can use a specialized synth you can load your own soundbanks onto. Casio being windows and the others like roland or whatever is linux because you choose the sound samples and all the modulation controls and equilzation knobs you can control your sound on casio you have presets. Like security levels you set in windows. You can't control your machine to the point you are not using a computer the computer is using you for data-mining.I am half talking out of my ass but these are all ways to think about it.

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 06:28:57 [Preview] No.20766 del
>the best product always wins.
It is true where concurency is taking place.

Windows is monopolist on desktop.It holds desktop by inertia of market and lazyness of users.
Therefore Linux has almost no succes on desctop.

But in science, in military technics, in space and other places where concurency remains in action, where users interested in quality and not binded by lazyness or inertia -- Linux wins.

Sory my engrish. Im in training here.

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 06:37:56 [Preview] No.20767 del
>the best product always wins.
It is true wherever concurency is taking place.

Windows was the monopolist on desktop for long time and it is very slow cede that position at the moment.

MS steel holds desktop by inertia of market and lazyness of users.
Therefore Linux steel has very humble success on desctop.

But in science, in military, in space technics and other places where concurency remains in action, (on my desktop too ^_^) where users interested in quality and not constricted by lazyness or inertia -- Linux wins.

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 06:54:26 [Preview] No.20768 del
We must concider example of Android. That is a Linux kernel with Java machine in role of GUI. Windows has no monopoly on mobiles, than Linux occupied mobile market wery fast

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 06:55:45 [Preview] No.20769 del
> Windows had never monopoly on mobiles
that is

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 07:38:05 [Preview] No.20770 del
>the best product always wins.
>It is true wherever concurency is taking place.

That isn't always true, it's often the company with the bigger marketing budget that wins.

Let me give you a helpful analogy: when two countries are fighting, do you think the "best country" always wins? No, it's normally the most powerful country who wins, and the same principle routinely applies with competiting companies. Sure sometimes a weaker country can use a clever strategy or a secret weapon to win a war, but normally the more powerful country crushes and occupies the weaker/smaller one.

Specifically, if any gaming company had built a new console and lost as much as Microsoft did on the first Xbox it would have finished them. Except Microsoft was a titan with over a billion dollars to lose, just to muscle their way into having market-share, and now they're a major player in the gaming industry. Smaller companies can't win long-term wars of attrition like the large ones can, and that's why over time the larger companies are just growing bigger.

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 13:14:03 [Preview] No.20771 del
Well I'm a Baby Boomer and I love Linux and HATE Microsoft because their newer OS are botnets.

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 13:20:07 [Preview] No.20772 del
Windows 98 and 2000 were good operating systems. XP was good if you removed some of the unnecessary junk. Anything newer I would highly not recommend using. Newer Windows is bloatware and full of third party telemetry spyware services people don't need.

If you like the older Windows platform yet want to try out a Linux OS as well, I'd recommend trying Q4OS. Q4OS was designed to mimic Windows XP, it looks almost exactly the same. With Wine installed with it, you can run Windows programs too.

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 19:15:01 [Preview] No.20776 del

Another boomer chiming in here. Yep, whoever you talked to are morons. Don't forget that it was a boomer judge that found microsoft guilty of using its monopoly powers to force its shitty products onto consumers that didn't want them. Don't think that boomers generally buy into the lies pushed by corporate greed.

Also, attempts to divide groups and foment strife between them purely based on race, gender, or age are a load of fuckin' bullshit. Calling you out, OP.

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 20:26:12 [Preview] No.20777 del
(12.59 KB 307x265 D78Ilo7XUAA0Dj5.jpeg)
The context was I was in a car and 3 Asian-American Baby Boomers ganged up on me. It was a very eye-opening experience for me.

They defended the right of Bill Gates to have 100 billion, and said he was a pioneer, a visonary, a genius. One told me he was a great guy for giving so much money away (even though he is still the second richest man and his net worth has increased by over 30 billion since he officially retiree, so his "charity" doesn't inconvenience him at all, and frankly disgusts me.)

They told me, "If you're so great why don't you give your money away?!"

I told them that I don't have money like they do. "With great power comes great responsibility," I added.

"Why don't you start a company and build your own OS then?!" one Boomer shouted at me and they all laughed.

I told them I would be swatted like a bug.

Later they also talked about how Jeff Bezos of Amazon was a great man from Brazil (he is the richest man and owns 150 billion.) Then they asked me smugly what I would have done with 150 billion dollars? They didn't believe me when I said I would give almost all of it away to causes I believed in, because a million dollars could last me for the rest of my life.

I honestly don't see how you could feel satisfied owning more than a few million dollars. I feel guilty as hell when I don't give a homeless guy money. It's impossible to feel perfectly happy when there are people suffering around you, (unless you're a stereotypical Baby Boomer.)

They called me a communist, and a low-life, and told me they were going to vote for Joe Biden, and that there was nothing I could say that would change their mind. Ugh.

Anonymous 06/02/2019 (Sun) 22:11:04 [Preview] No.20778 del
Yeah, they were morons and I agree with everything you said except for "unless you're a stereotypical Baby Boomer". WTF man?! I'm sorry that you feel a need to stereotype my ass solely because I watched the moon landing live on a tiny B&W teevee. If you actually seriously believe that everyone born within a certain range of years must all think alike, you should work on that because wars are dumb.

Also, there's no way I'm voting for Biden, so I hope you can disavow yourself of that falsehood oft perpetrated round these parts as well. Nuking the entire health insurance industry is a platform that'll get this boomer's vote. Seeing a picture of the contents of the skull of the CEO of Blue Shield / Blue Cross spattered over thirty square feet of pavement at the base of their 57-story facility after he threw himself off the roof would bring a great big smile to my face, though not really because even he's probably got a momma.

Anonymous 06/03/2019 (Mon) 06:15:40 [Preview] No.20780 del
Most Boomers are still for the status quo and have ideas they formulated decades ago which they're not open to changing. After decades of anti-ussr and anti-socialist propaganda which still continues on right wing talk radio, they can't help but to hallucinate soviet enemies. Polls show they really don't care much about the issues that affect the younger generations, like tuition, global warming, rising income disparity, or racially motivated violence. Above all, they've refuse to seriously reevaluate and address the root problem of capitalism.

Anonymous 06/03/2019 (Mon) 16:47:08 [Preview] No.20781 del
If you care about global warming so much, you should be blaming countries like China, not the US or Europe which have much much lower rates of pollution. Also they fact that governments admit they are practicing geo-engineering and cloud seeding is also more of a concern due to them spraying chemicals like barium salts, strontium and aluminum oxides in the sky. Inb4 screaming conspiracy because it is highly documented and even admitted by governmental agencies all around the world.

Anonymous 06/03/2019 (Mon) 16:55:43 [Preview] No.20782 del
Also, if you really care about the wealth gap you should care how our central banking system really works, and the problems that come with debt insolvency. This chart exposes a lot of the problems we face due to endless growing debts and overspending by governmental institutions (thank the central banks for creating this massive ponzi scheme bubble too).

Another thing: universities profit from government subsidies and the fact the government protects their overpriced student loan racket. They did this by outlawing bankruptcy cases for students, and then allowing predatory lending by banks. This in turn allows the universities to jack up enormous prices legally without the banks being prosecuted for racketeering/usury. So do you really think the solution is more government subsidies?

Anonymous 06/03/2019 (Mon) 20:06:08 [Preview] No.20784 del
That figure is misleading. The reason there is so much pollution in China is because Americans and the west are buying cheap junk from a country that doesnt pollute in their back yard. The root problem is still the west. If the factories were in moved to America overnight to be closer to their customers, then you would know who to blame.

Anonymous 06/03/2019 (Mon) 20:09:12 [Preview] No.20785 del
Institutions aren't the problem, its Baby Boomer thinking which demands infinitely lower taxes without paying for any peograms that exists, let alone the new programs we need to start. Like to address homelessness or decarbonizing the economy. Private industry can not be incentivized to address those before the world heats up, or our major cities become full of tents.

Anonymous 06/07/2019 (Fri) 04:28:01 [Preview] No.20823 del
A major reason I'm a socialist is I want more free time, and for more people to have freedom to have as much free time as I tend to have. I spend much of my life reading shit too, and I loathe how politics has become so crucial and more than an entertaining diversion or something you only occassionally have to correct.


Anonymous 06/07/2019 (Fri) 15:10:08 [Preview] No.20828 del
You fail to realize that, although there is a lot of mindless consumption (which I am against), there is necessary consumption as well and energy is essential for a country to have basic utilities and transportation services. If you don't want to live in a third world country, some carbon is going to be released (even if we are to utilize alternatives like Solar energy which I am all for). The bigger problem is not CO2 but literal trash and litter in the streets, which is a rampant problem in cities like LA right now. Thats why third world diseases are making a comeback in certain cities, with rat infestations. Which is highly ironic considering that State is allegedly hell-bent on "reducing pollution."

Also, China does not have the same environmental standards the US has nationwide. For example: our power plants already are forced to comply with regulations that REDUCE CO2 by 90%.... Chinese power plants fill the air with mass amounts of smog and carbon, there is no environmental protections over there like the US currently has. So bringing industry back over to the US will significantly reduce pollution, not only overseas but period.

Anonymous 06/07/2019 (Fri) 15:27:34 [Preview] No.20829 del
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our government gets $1 Trillion $$$ in budgets now, every single year. Question: if more government is the solution, where did all the Trillions $$$ go to fix all our problems and come up with solutions already?

Throwing taxpayer money at institutions or even government is recklessness. We have been doing this for decades, and the results are for all to see today. Massive inequality. Poor education. Mismanagement/waste - and downright looting in some cases - of taxpayer money. Record poverty rates. Massive debt insolvency. Rampant corruption. Incompetence. Pollution. Our own military who gets more funding than all the other world's militaries combined recently admitted their digitized catapults don't even work, Navy vessels keep getting lost at sea and in some cases crashing, and when the DoD do audits they fail every single freaking audit! Yet we hand out Billions $$$ to our military every single year, right!? Yah, a lot good that did! Should they be given even more taxpayer money, like Trump stupidly suggested?

Institutions are not the sole problem - corruption is, and the one way to fuel corruption is to hand out free money even when those institutions fail to produce intended results or turn a blind eye to all the problems around them. Its like paying the same guards at a bank which has been robbed three or four times already in the last two months, its stupid and totally incompetent.

Anonymous 06/07/2019 (Fri) 17:18:12 [Preview] No.20833 del
The reason politics is such a thorny and divisive topic today is because the insider corruption, incompetence, abuse, lies, fraud and waste of taxpayer money is unprecedented and rampant today and people (from both sides) are looking and are desperate for change and reform. Congressional approval over the last two decades has gotten as low as 3% across the board. Hard workers are seeing their jobs vanish and are struggling just to get by week to week. Infrastructure is no longer being repaired or maintained (although taxes are not the problem, we pay the taxes but they waste/loot our tax dollars). Insolvent companies and banks that should be going bankrupt due to mass fraud and debt insolvency are being bailed out at the expense of taxpayers, the MIC gets tons and tons of funding and everything new they adopt is complete garbage that failed standard DoD audits, medical prices are still going up regardless all the 'reform' by the ACA and so is insurance premiums, the US government legalized predatory student loans and subsidizes any losses (so the universities and banks go hog wild at the expense of students).... need I say more?

And please think about all this before you think throwing more tax dollars at them is going to fix the problems. It. Will. Not. How is California enjoying that $10,000,000,000 high speed rail system that taxpayers already paid for? Hmmmmmm....... surely throwing more free money at them should solve the all the problems! Its not like they're politicians are totally incompetent and corrupted, right? Same as in most red states too, so I'm not cherry picking, recently Winfield was flooded because conservative politicians failed to fix and maintain the levees that held the river into place (which is required!)... wonder where all those taxes went to?

Anonymous 06/07/2019 (Fri) 20:56:40 [Preview] No.20834 del
>$10 billion
They're still going to build a stretch of that until they run out of money. You took the wrong message from that debacle, first of all the USA should be making bullet trains not bullets. Second, when Japan built its first bullet trains 70 years ago there was plenty of corruption there too. But they built them and they paid for themselves. The one that goes from Kyoto to Tokyo through the mountains isn't just convenient, fun, safer than flying, and more carbon efficient than planes, but it has also also paid for itself over many times over. Corruption or not, they're a necessary investment that cannot be escaped, which will still pay for itself.

America could have build bullet trains much earlier when there was less land. In the beginning most of the land in the west was owned by the federal government, who should have held onto more land for the public, rather than selling land to developers for short-term profit. At least there would have been parks, and they could tear down old government buildings to build train stations without lawsuits and having to pay obscene fees to greedy private land owners. With socialism, they could also simply expropriate land and just build the trains.

Capitalism and greed has been the problem. Private industry will never invest in bullet trains or they would have done so already. No American company is willing to gamble $10s or hundreds of billion dollars on trains which are considered risky investment in the USA. The government is considered too large to go bankrupt, and has to take the lead just like they did with NASA in the 1950's or large changes just won't happen. China's bullet trains only happened because of government investment too.

Speaking of the 1950's that's when Japan built theirs with government investment. I'd rather that America had built bullet trains instead of vanity rockets only to abandon space travel after the Apollo landing showed there wasn't any gold on the moon. (Or they could have still done both since Japan does have a rocket program, but it wouldn't matter, because you'd still find an excuse to chant that "SOCIALISM IS BAD.")

Anonymous 06/07/2019 (Fri) 21:06:48 [Preview] No.20835 del
>medical prices are still going up regardless all the 'reform' by the ACA
60 years of rising prices only in America prove that neoliberalism and capitalism will never lower healthcare costs. You have to give up on that failed ideology, be pragmatic and switch to providing universal single payer government insurance, which every single developed country has. "Options" is just a scam, the options are only for the medical companies, and you'll still be able to buy more expensive surgeries than anyone else if you're rich.

>the US government legalized predatory student loans and subsidizes any losses

Which is why the government just needs to provide free public college to any warm-body who is motivated enough to sit in class and not flunk. It's the same story as with medical system.

Capitalism fails and results in sub-par for-profit education instead of expanding universal education to all, which we need for direct democracy, or even a futuristic functional anarcho-capitalism.

>the MIC gets tons and tons of funding
That's because of private enterprise. Imagine if America lost its hard-on for "free enterprise", these were government owned companies and you could audit them. Government could demand efficiency and audit the factories without all the legal crap, the revolving doors, or having to bribe those companies so they won't create an environment for private contractors to sell their secrets to China.

Anonymous 06/07/2019 (Fri) 21:19:39 [Preview] No.20836 del
C02 is a bigger problem than trash. Trash flowing into the ocean is a real problem, but the environment can theoretically clean up a lot of that on its own. C02 is different, a 2 degree Celsius increase will make a soupy arctic, a permanently fire-prone North America, and some flooding across the coasts and even inland where there are rivers. It'll result in food scarcity, immigration, the spread of malaria, mass deaths, lost productivity... it's worse than trash, but it's in the air and it's literally invisible. Stop burning coal or oil and you would get rid of asthma and a great amount of lung cancer from most of our cities. Reduce the number of planes and ships and you'd reduce the amount of lead sprinkled on cities, and sewage dumped everywhere.

Tax carbon and people will switch to more local organic farming. Ban most carbon and people will switch to electric and solar, and once we can be more decentralized and self-sufficient the grid the state/companies will not be able to control us. The green movement wants to restore power to the people while also saving the human race (and the other mammals) from extinction. Ecosocialism kills two birds with one stone.

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 04:16:44 [Preview] No.20839 del
>first of all the USA should be making bullet trains not bullets.

I'd argue that we should be making bullet trains and bullets and anything else needed for a functional society. The problem is thats not happening and most of the taxes we pay are being wasted due to corruption and incompetence. The issue isn't the fact we don't pay taxes, the issue is that our tax dollars are being heavily mismanaged. I guess one could argue that we need massive reform and new people running the government and I would agree with that. We also need to vote out all these political incumbents as well, from both parties because they are all equally corrupted.

>Corruption or not, they're a necessary investment that cannot be escaped

Corruption often involves officials stealing taxpayer money intended for investments. Sometimes mismanaging that money intended for investments into something else that enriches their own special interests (whom lobby them). And it happens all the time today. So you can trust a thief with your money but don't expect any favors or return.

>they could also simply expropriate land and just build the trains

They could do that, although they should be required to give compensation to those who own private property. How would you like it if your family lived on a farm, and you inherited it, just to have the government say "nope, sorry, thats for us to use now." I'd say the private property owners deserve fair compensation for that loss. Regardless, I don't even see this issue coming up because there has been no bullet train built, only a very small fraction that leads to nowhere.

>China's bullet trains only happened because of government investment too.

You have a good point there. In China, the government has been known to hang officials and bankers who are corrupted, who get caught stealing money, committing fraud and/or making malinvestment with intent to enrich themselves. Perhaps we need a government that takes corruption a lot more seriously here too?

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 04:30:44 [Preview] No.20840 del
The biggest debate about modern environmental issues such as carbon taxation and forcing people to adopt alternatives is simply the sad fact that most people cannot afford to do so today because of all the job outsourcing, increasing poverty, price inflation and the fact that more than half of America is already trapped in debts worried about being able to pay the next utility bill or provide food on the table. Like it or not this is why the Yellow Vests are protesting in France, because they can no longer afford basic essentials after Macron's government raised their taxes. Now they're burning tires, cars and trash in the streets causing more CO2 in rebellion.

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 05:18:28 [Preview] No.20841 del
(26.05 KB 480x248 tesla.jpg)
All carbon taxation does is allow all the rich Baby Boomers to buy their way out of dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as they can. If it weren't for Baby Boomer thinking we'd all be running Linux and have free health care and no wars and no global warming and no ocean freighters spewing ten trillion times all the CO2 generated by burning tires at all protests ever and no greed and all our files would be backed up and everything would be great. Fuckin' Baby Boomers, man! Forget jews and niggers, it's all about the Baby Boomers, and in another ten years, the Millenials! Fuck them!

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 10:22:34 [Preview] No.20846 del
The problem with healthcare isn't capitalism, it's a lack of it. Big pharma has somehow managed to ban most imported pharmaceuticals, so they're allowed to raise their prices as they please without worrying about competition from outside the US.

I largely agree with what you said about education, most people are too stupid to vote intelligently, and instead vote for the better looking candidate with better-sounding platitudes.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, I don't know why you're so eager to put control of that in the hands of our corrupt government. What we really need is to stop the flow of corporate money into politics. Without corporate "speech" flowing into politicians' pockets, the government will be accountable to the voter again. One they're back on our side, they'll start regulating corporations properly or get voted out of office. It's checks and balances; the corporation will do everything it can to profit in whatever way it can, and the government will do everything it can to curb the harms corporations inevitably cause. I'd much rather have a system like this than trust everything to a single entity and hope they act morally and efficiently.

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 10:33:53 [Preview] No.20847 del
I just don't think socialism is viable right now. We need the technology to automate most menial jobs first. We still need manpower to drive industry right now. You'd have to be heavily indoctrinated to be happy doing one of those jobs because the government needs you to or because society needs you to.

Corporations are too greedy to pass up serious innovation in automation, so socialism is definitely coming, but I don't think we're ready for it yet.

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 16:04:43 [Preview] No.20852 del
>All carbon taxation does is allow all the rich Baby Boomers to buy their way out of dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as they can.

Which is EXACTLY why it is not fair, because the average worker struggling to make ends meat already will be hit the hardest. You'll still have rich politicians and oligarchs flying in their private jumbo-jets. And you know what? They're so corrupted today I bet they'll even exempt themselves! Just like Congress exempted themselves from ACA regulations before passing it, recall that? Yah, this carbon taxation is just another tax on the poor people, the hard workers, the average taxpayer.... just listen to the Yellow Jackets in France, they know.

Ironically as a free market capitalist myself, I've said all along that corporate lobbying should be outlawed and anyone engaged in it punished for sedition against the United States. Whether that be lobbying politicians or government officials. The main job of the government should be cracking down on crime, whether it be street crime or organized crime. There should be no bias, only the pursuit to bring Justice to criminals, insiders or outsiders.

I think one of the fundamental mistakes our Founding Fathers made was not defining lobbying/bribery of public officials as acts of sedition or treason. If it were, and they kept up with strict punishment, a whole lot of problems we have today would have never existed.

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 16:11:26 [Preview] No.20853 del
As you said, the corporations will automate jobs. Those jobs will not be replaced. You can have automation without socialism, where all the rich get trillions of dollars in profits, and the poor live a subsidence life, while being unemployable. We might be headed toward that dystopia.

Most jobs could have been automated a long time ago.

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 16:21:17 [Preview] No.20854 del
>We need the technology to automate most menial jobs first.

You do realize you are asking for a system that will not work, right? A failed experiment just like outsourcing was.

Let me tell you what will happen. First the basics: the government gets its funding from whom? Taxpayers. Who pays taxes? The people who work and make an income by working. What do taxpayers do besides work? They consume products/services. Who else consumes products/services? People on welfare. Who funds welfare programs? Taxpayers. Who relies on this consumption cycle to exist? Corporations.

What would happen if you were to have no human workers? You would have no tax revenue. You would have no more government funding anymore. You would have no supply or demand for consumption either. Corporations would go bankrupt because no one would be able to afford consuming anymore. No jobs = no money = no profits = no taxes to collect from = no welfare programs. The WHOLE SYSTEM would collapse without human workers making income to tax and consume!

So think about it, and get back to me, and tell us how to avoid that from happening. Honestly, I think the government, the corporate mainstream media and the oligarchs on this planet are spoiled, pampered brats who are way out of touch about how this system really works, and they are all facing serious delusions of grandeur thinking they no longer need humans running this system!

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 16:29:41 [Preview] No.20855 del
Corporations rely on human consumers to exist and maintain profits. So do banks. So does government with their tax revenue too. If you take the hard working taxpayer (the consumers and contributers of society $) out of the big picture, you get left with nothing but poverty, and no one would be able to afford to pay taxes or consume anything, and the government would face shut-down from lack of revenues! The system would be 100% unsustainable! It would work about, give or take 20 years, until all the revenue and consumption inevitably dries up. Corporations would go broke, and so would government too, because everyone else would be broke.

inb4 universal income for all!

Taxpayer money. :/

Anonymous 06/08/2019 (Sat) 19:01:13 [Preview] No.20858 del
(452.13 KB 280x137 watchingused.gif)
We're moving toward a world of automated factories. Everything from mining to trucking and manufacturing will soon be automated.

Do you want to have those goods or do you want the rich to inherit them? Remember that their luxurious living won't be because the rich worked hard for it, it'll be because their grandparents built the automated factories.

>implying UBI is bad
Do you want them to create pointless jobs so you can do pointless work you don't enjoy, which robots could do more efficiently than you?

Anonymous 06/09/2019 (Sun) 01:12:15 [Preview] No.20861 del
That's my point. Once automation has taken over, socialism will be not only viable, but likely inevitable, because capitalism will collapse under its own weight.

If you're trying to say corporations won't automate to increase their profit margins, you're insane. Ever since the industrial revolution, corporations have been investing in machines which allow them to employ fewer workers. Let's not forget that layoffs exist. Corporations don't hang on to workers for some nebulous reason like "they pay taxes," they care about posting ever increasing profit numbers, and they'll do whatever it takes to keep posting those numbers. It's inevitable that they'll automate all the jobs away because any corporation which doesn't will be completely demolished by those that do.

Anonymous 06/09/2019 (Sun) 15:02:16 [Preview] No.20867 del
Look, what I'm trying to make clear is that the system won't work if you just rely on robots to do everything.

Who will pay taxes without any income?
Who will consume without any income?
How will you get welfare or universal subsidy if there are no workers to tax?
How will the government run if there is no tax revenue (aka no hard workers to tax)?
How will corporations make profits or even stay in business without workers with an income consuming their products/using their services?

It all comes down to the taxpayers, the workers. This is what makes society function. Without the masses having jobs, there would be very little tax revenue and very little consumption because everyone would be impoverished.

The basic problem is that without taxes, there will be no government funding for universal income, and without workers to tax, there will be no taxes. The corporations could pay a huge tax.... but that would eliminate profits and again, who will have income to consume if there are no workers?

I'd much rather have AI robots replace these STUPID ASS politicians and bureaucrats we have today!

Anonymous 06/09/2019 (Sun) 15:19:09 [Preview] No.20868 del
One reason corporations still make profit today is we have a massive welfare system where "free gibs" create a whole lot of consumers. And think about it, who ends up paying for those "free gibs" in the first place? Hard working taxpayers. The United States adopted the BIGGEST WELFARE SYSTEM ON THE PLANET after all the industrial outsourcing in the 80s and 90s.

Meanwhile, most corporations today are greedy and insolvent and would have gone bankrupt by now if 1) the US dollar was not the global reserve currency, 2) if it were not for government subsidies and bailouts [thank the hardworking taxpayers for the bill] and 3) if it were not for hardworking taxpayers that consume and prop up the entire massive welfare system so the poor welfare queens can consume too. And if these corporations are so damn greedy that they think they can lay off all the workers, I'm looking forward to their collapse as well as the collapse of this whole corrupt system. This is exactly why I have been prepping for SHTF, fiscal insanity and insolvency.

Anonymous 06/10/2019 (Mon) 01:38:35 [Preview] No.20870 del
The very rich are not hard working taxpayers, they're the new lords whose parents invariably were also rich. The economy is responding to a scenario where the rich own most things by providing jobs where you serve the very rich so they can receive a tiny sliver of momentary happiness rather than a normal person's essentials. We are prioritizing their luxuries over over regular peoples' essentials. Capitalism creates an industrial based aristocracy.

The proliferation of expensive restaurants over cheaper "fast food" is an indication that the economy has stopped caring about serving regular people. It'll remain apathetic unless you confiscate enough wealth that the rich have already illegally or violently acquired from the backs of the working class, or by stealing from 3rd world slaves.

Anonymous 06/10/2019 (Mon) 01:45:21 [Preview] No.20871 del
(112.86 KB 850x1360 8497927518509787121.jpg)
Someday robots will replace us and consume all of the wealth. For real though, this is why you need universal basic income and to make sure that normal people own the robots and not the 0.001% of the bourgeoisie. If you don't strike st capitalism then capitalism will enslave everyone, and the 0.001% will control 99.99% of the planet's resources while the rest of us live around ruined flooded cities with pollution spread everywhere. They will terrorize us with automated weapons and we cannot possibly muster the capital to retaliate. Our women and daughters will be the slaves of the rich 0.001% who are lords.

Anonymous 06/10/2019 (Mon) 02:27:21 [Preview] No.20872 del
Except the 1% pay 40-50% of the taxes in this country. Again, we're definitely headed in a direction which will make capitalism unsustainable, but how are we going to make socialism work without automation? Or are you cool with 99% of us being forced into shitty jobs we don't want to do by the state? The problem is that we need manpower. There are shitty jobs that robots just can't do yet, or if they can, they're too expensive to replace humans. Once we have things automated properly, capitalism will collapse under its own weight unless it moves more and more towards socialism.

Anonymous 06/10/2019 (Mon) 08:50:27 [Preview] No.20873 del
this wins the most boring thread on endchan award for 2019 so far

Anonymous 06/10/2019 (Mon) 09:42:11 [Preview] No.20874 del
(204.65 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0001.jpg)
Year's not even halfway over yet give it some time

Anonymous 06/10/2019 (Mon) 23:50:03 [Preview] No.20878 del
Maybe it's only boring when you've inherited lousy hollow bourgeoisie values, which make most things boring.

Anonymous 06/11/2019 (Tue) 18:50:06 [Preview] No.20885 del
Microsoft exploited crony capitalim and lobbying they're also backdoored to hell but inertia keeps them in power.
Capitalism itself is prone to devouring itself, creative destruction etc, etc. the current model penalises useful innovation

Anonymous 06/11/2019 (Tue) 18:54:46 [Preview] No.20886 del
You are descended from the Bourgois of the past they tend to have more children than the lower income brackets.

Anonymous 06/11/2019 (Tue) 19:28:24 [Preview] No.20887 del
(42.44 KB 1122x576 D8LLvc3VsAAlSF-.jpeg)
No farmers had the most kids because they needed a large family to tend to the fields. Rich people have less kids, and their women atte more educated. Women especially once educated don't want ads many kids so they can pursue their own dreams or give more time to the ones they have.

Anonymous 06/11/2019 (Tue) 19:51:20 [Preview] No.20888 del
Not if you go back a century or more, the poorest 50% of the population in england had 40% fewer surviving children surviving to adulthood than the richer 50%
and yeoman farmers had many more kids than poorer farmers.
under current social support systems, extended education for more intelligent women is one of the most dangerously dysgenic policies for intelligence.
feminism was bad for our species.

Anonymous 06/11/2019 (Tue) 19:54:44 [Preview] No.20889 del
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z22eq8xqXME [Embed]
The volume is quiet but it's an interesting discussion.

Anonymous 06/11/2019 (Tue) 21:38:09 [Preview] No.20890 del
(103.24 KB 1213x1708 qz_children987.png)
If you think it's a major problem then focus on making the poor less poor so that then they'll have as few resource consuming kids. (But IQ differences are actually mainly due to poverty.)

Anonymous 06/12/2019 (Wed) 15:37:28 [Preview] No.20905 del
Measured IQ is subject to the Flynn effect where familiarity with technology and improved education have improved test taking ability.
The highly genetically correlated g-factor has declined based on purer if less direct non trainable tests.

Anonymous 06/12/2019 (Wed) 17:46:49 [Preview] No.20909 del
Improving education without fixing the income inequality is not enough. Income inequality had become a major obstacle to education and ultimately career advancement.

Read why better schools alone won't fix America:

Anonymous 06/13/2019 (Thu) 05:39:58 [Preview] No.20937 del
(147.27 KB 1125x1064 D8JUdp9XYAUMiSE.jpg)
>dem boomer memes

Anonymous 06/13/2019 (Thu) 22:12:34 [Preview] No.20957 del
Obviously the genetic IQ decline is a slow process unless you have massily skewed birth rates among the very stupidest or have low iq migration into a country, we can't equate the two
as I understand it there are many problems within the american social strata partly that your rich are parasitic and your large free supposedly free market companies are treated as too big to fail with corporate and foreign state lobbying both proving cancerous
but from what I understand of it one of the major factors is the explosion of single parent families which has partly been caused by a welfare system that actively penalised stable 2 parent families.

Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply