Discussion:
The Media Is Presenting A False Choice On The Coronavirus
Add Reply
kensi
2020-03-26 05:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The caricaturing of the Let's Not Destroy The Economy side gets even
more absurd.
You misspelled "the Let's Kill People So 10-Billion-aires Don't Have To
Become Mere Billionaires" side. HTH.

That side, BTW, is batshit insane. The virus does not care if you are
rich or poor, and if you get bad enough pneumonia from it, all the money
in the world won't buy your way out of dying from it. Add in that rich
people are mostly a bunch of fat old diabetic white men and membership
in the "restart the economy no matter how many it kills" club looks more
and more like a suicide pact.

The problem being, these suicidally deluded lunatics would take tens of
millions of innocent hardworking people with them when they went.

Everyone advocating this should be quarantined. For their own
protection, of course. Starting with you.
Those of us on that end of the spectrum are accused of
"putting the economy over people." We are embracing "mass death" and
consigning our grandmothers to the morgue. As one media guy put it to
me, we "have a hard-on for mass murder."
Nobody ever got rich except on the backs of the working poor, or even
slave labor, or else through the genocide of some aboriginal tribe,
unless they merely inherited a fortune that originated in such a manner.
It's not surprising that many of them embrace mass death, then: it
worked out well for their ancestors, or even for themselves, if not for
their employees or the natives whose land was conquered.
I can't help but notice that nearly everyone making these points
(though "points" may be too generous a term) is currently employed.
Excellent, you've discovered that pundits and talking heads with giant
media organization platforms are currently employed. Now, for
double-or-nothing points, can you guess by what organizations they are
employed? :)
Of course, the whole notion that "people" and "economy" are two
separate categories, and that one must choose between preserving the
former or the latter, is ludicrous. The economy _is_ people. When the
economy crashes, people's lives crash.
Conversely, if rich people looking at the dismal Dow numbers and having
a sad react by killing tens of millions of people to try to preserve
their ill-gotten fortunes, they'll be killing several percent of the
economy they say they're trying to save.

Idiot.
And that brings us to the false dilemma I mentioned at the start. I
have not seen any prominent person advocate that we throw these
quarantines to the side all at once and get back to business as if
everything is perfectly normal. I have not see anyone suggest that no
measures be taken to address the pandemic or protect ourselves against
it.
No, it's clear what measures you idiots want: no social distancing, no
shutdowns, business as usual, and of course the virus spreads massively,
so you will want access to ventilators and other medical support for
serious cases to be rationed on the basis of who can pay the most, which
means the rich will have decent care if they get a serious case while
everyone else who gets it bad enough to need oxygen or whatever is
abandoned to die.

The problem for you is, even with excellent support, half of cases that
serious die anyway, so basically it'll be the Titanic all over again:
the poor all die and there's only enough room in the lifeboats to save
*half* the rich people.

Seems like a shoddy deal to me. If I was rich, I wouldn't take it. 50%
chance of death and 50% chance of living to not have a huge desperate
cheap labor force to exploit anymore? Bleh. I'd rather lose a chunk of
my giant ill-gotten hoard (while still keeping far more than most people
will ever own in their lifetimes) while the virus is contained and have
a nearly 0% chance of dying and an excellent chance of there still being
a big, easily-exploited cheap labor force after it's over.

But then, I'm also smart enough to engage in the moral reasoning that
leads me to realize that exploiting cheap labor is *bad*, aren't I? So
maybe most of the rich will of necessity be stupid enough to take the
shitty option and flip that coin for their own lives. I guess we'll see.
1) Open the economy back up. Let young and healthy people work and feed
their families.
2) Encourage masks, or even require them, for certain industries where
transmission might be especially likely.
3) Keep nursing homes quarantined.
4) Tell other at-risk people to remain in their homes for now.
5) Test aggressively and quarantine the infected.
Good luck with that. Tests are in short supply, apparently everywhere
except for some reason South Korea.
6) Provide financial relief to at-risk people who cannot work.
Wait, what? Did ... did you just advocate giving people *welfare*?

OK, who's socking up and frogging Ubi?
7) Continued quarantines for specific regions where the outbreak is
especially bad.
My suggestions certainly are not novel or very creative.
And, of course, they won't work. It will just fester in hidden corners
and then erupt in big regional outbreaks, and sooner or later *you* will
get it.
I'm sure if smarter people than myself got to work thinking of solutions
that don't involve willful economic suicide, they could come up with some
better ones.
I'd say that the problem instead is to think of solutions that don't
involve willful *genocide*, except that we already did. It's the
lockdowns you keep bitching about every time your giant stock portfolio
takes another hit and makes you slightly less rich than before.
We are a nation of problem solvers. And good problem solvers find
solutions that don't create worse problems than they were meant to
solve.
We're trading a dangerous and immediately life-threatening problem, a
novel virus, for something easy that we've already dealt with once
before, a depression. Once the virus is gone, a Green New Deal here and
a New GI Bill there and we're golden. FDR left us the blueprints and
there's even a presidential candidate willing to put them into action
promptly after he's inaugurated ... if, that is, he survives the virus.

Maybe *that* is the real reason for advocating an end to the lockdowns.
You hope the virus will spread uncontained and kill Bernie Sanders. You
bastard.
The strategies suggested above would certainly slow the spread to some
extent. Would they slow it enough? I don't know.
I do. The answer is "nope".
Is their chance of slowing the spread good enough to justify opening up
the economy to stave off a historic collapse that would ruin many
millions of lives?
Nope.
I think so.
That's because you're an idiot. Unless you're a genocidal lunatic
instead, of course.
Enough with the caricatures and false dichotomies. This problem is too
serious for those kinds of games.
It's too serious to let privileged rich old diabetic white men call all
the shots. Get back into the kiddy corner, k0oks, and let's let the real
adults make the decisions for a change.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Checkmate
2020-03-26 08:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 01:58:51 -0400 kensi put forth the following
Post by kensi
The caricaturing of the Let's Not Destroy The Economy side gets even
more absurd.
You misspelled "the Let's Kill People So 10-Billion-aires Don't Have To
Become Mere Billionaires" side. HTH.
That side, BTW, is batshit insane. The virus does not care if you are
rich or poor, and if you get bad enough pneumonia from it, all the money
in the world won't buy your way out of dying from it. Add in that rich
people are mostly a bunch of fat old diabetic white men and membership
in the "restart the economy no matter how many it kills" club looks more
and more like a suicide pact.
The problem being, these suicidally deluded lunatics would take tens of
millions of innocent hardworking people with them when they went.
Everyone advocating this should be quarantined. For their own
protection, of course. Starting with you.
Those of us on that end of the spectrum are accused of
"putting the economy over people." We are embracing "mass death" and
consigning our grandmothers to the morgue. As one media guy put it to
me, we "have a hard-on for mass murder."
Nobody ever got rich except on the backs of the working poor, or even
slave labor, or else through the genocide of some aboriginal tribe,
unless they merely inherited a fortune that originated in such a manner.
It's not surprising that many of them embrace mass death, then: it
worked out well for their ancestors, or even for themselves, if not for
their employees or the natives whose land was conquered.
I can't help but notice that nearly everyone making these points
(though "points" may be too generous a term) is currently employed.
Excellent, you've discovered that pundits and talking heads with giant
media organization platforms are currently employed. Now, for
double-or-nothing points, can you guess by what organizations they are
employed? :)
Of course, the whole notion that "people" and "economy" are two
separate categories, and that one must choose between preserving the
former or the latter, is ludicrous. The economy _is_ people. When the
economy crashes, people's lives crash.
Conversely, if rich people looking at the dismal Dow numbers and having
a sad react by killing tens of millions of people to try to preserve
their ill-gotten fortunes, they'll be killing several percent of the
economy they say they're trying to save.
Idiot.
And that brings us to the false dilemma I mentioned at the start. I
have not seen any prominent person advocate that we throw these
quarantines to the side all at once and get back to business as if
everything is perfectly normal. I have not see anyone suggest that no
measures be taken to address the pandemic or protect ourselves against
it.
No, it's clear what measures you idiots want: no social distancing, no
shutdowns, business as usual, and of course the virus spreads massively,
so you will want access to ventilators and other medical support for
serious cases to be rationed on the basis of who can pay the most, which
means the rich will have decent care if they get a serious case while
everyone else who gets it bad enough to need oxygen or whatever is
abandoned to die.
The problem for you is, even with excellent support, half of cases that
the poor all die and there's only enough room in the lifeboats to save
*half* the rich people.
Seems like a shoddy deal to me. If I was rich, I wouldn't take it. 50%
chance of death and 50% chance of living to not have a huge desperate
cheap labor force to exploit anymore? Bleh. I'd rather lose a chunk of
my giant ill-gotten hoard (while still keeping far more than most people
will ever own in their lifetimes) while the virus is contained and have
a nearly 0% chance of dying and an excellent chance of there still being
a big, easily-exploited cheap labor force after it's over.
But then, I'm also smart enough to engage in the moral reasoning that
leads me to realize that exploiting cheap labor is *bad*, aren't I? So
maybe most of the rich will of necessity be stupid enough to take the
shitty option and flip that coin for their own lives. I guess we'll see.
1) Open the economy back up. Let young and healthy people work and feed
their families.
2) Encourage masks, or even require them, for certain industries where
transmission might be especially likely.
3) Keep nursing homes quarantined.
4) Tell other at-risk people to remain in their homes for now.
5) Test aggressively and quarantine the infected.
Good luck with that. Tests are in short supply, apparently everywhere
except for some reason South Korea.
6) Provide financial relief to at-risk people who cannot work.
Wait, what? Did ... did you just advocate giving people *welfare*?
OK, who's socking up and frogging Ubi?
7) Continued quarantines for specific regions where the outbreak is
especially bad.
My suggestions certainly are not novel or very creative.
And, of course, they won't work. It will just fester in hidden corners
and then erupt in big regional outbreaks, and sooner or later *you* will
get it.
I'm sure if smarter people than myself got to work thinking of solutions
that don't involve willful economic suicide, they could come up with some
better ones.
I'd say that the problem instead is to think of solutions that don't
involve willful *genocide*, except that we already did. It's the
lockdowns you keep bitching about every time your giant stock portfolio
takes another hit and makes you slightly less rich than before.
We are a nation of problem solvers. And good problem solvers find
solutions that don't create worse problems than they were meant to
solve.
We're trading a dangerous and immediately life-threatening problem, a
novel virus, for something easy that we've already dealt with once
before, a depression. Once the virus is gone, a Green New Deal here and
a New GI Bill there and we're golden. FDR left us the blueprints and
there's even a presidential candidate willing to put them into action
promptly after he's inaugurated ... if, that is, he survives the virus.
Maybe *that* is the real reason for advocating an end to the lockdowns.
You hope the virus will spread uncontained and kill Bernie Sanders. You
bastard.
The strategies suggested above would certainly slow the spread to some
extent. Would they slow it enough? I don't know.
I do. The answer is "nope".
Is their chance of slowing the spread good enough to justify opening up
the economy to stave off a historic collapse that would ruin many
millions of lives?
Nope.
I think so.
That's because you're an idiot. Unless you're a genocidal lunatic
instead, of course.
Enough with the caricatures and false dichotomies. This problem is too
serious for those kinds of games.
It's too serious to let privileged rich old diabetic white men call all
the shots. Get back into the kiddy corner, k0oks, and let's let the real
adults make the decisions for a change.
You DO realize that if the economy tanks, it affects the other 99.999% of
the world too... don't you?
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2020
all rights reserved



***************************************************
"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as
kensi." -Nadegda
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$***@dont-email.me>
***************************************************

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Skeeter
2020-03-26 09:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 01:58:51 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
The caricaturing of the Let's Not Destroy The Economy side gets even
more absurd.
You misspelled "the Let's Kill People So 10-Billion-aires Don't Have To
Become Mere Billionaires" side. HTH.
That side, BTW, is batshit insane. The virus does not care if you are
rich or poor, and if you get bad enough pneumonia from it, all the money
in the world won't buy your way out of dying from it. Add in that rich
people are mostly a bunch of fat old diabetic white men and membership
in the "restart the economy no matter how many it kills" club looks more
and more like a suicide pact.
The problem being, these suicidally deluded lunatics would take tens of
millions of innocent hardworking people with them when they went.
Everyone advocating this should be quarantined. For their own
protection, of course. Starting with you.
Those of us on that end of the spectrum are accused of
"putting the economy over people." We are embracing "mass death" and
consigning our grandmothers to the morgue. As one media guy put it to
me, we "have a hard-on for mass murder."
Nobody ever got rich except on the backs of the working poor, or even
slave labor, or else through the genocide of some aboriginal tribe,
unless they merely inherited a fortune that originated in such a manner.
It's not surprising that many of them embrace mass death, then: it
worked out well for their ancestors, or even for themselves, if not for
their employees or the natives whose land was conquered.
I can't help but notice that nearly everyone making these points
(though "points" may be too generous a term) is currently employed.
Excellent, you've discovered that pundits and talking heads with giant
media organization platforms are currently employed. Now, for
double-or-nothing points, can you guess by what organizations they are
employed? :)
Of course, the whole notion that "people" and "economy" are two
separate categories, and that one must choose between preserving the
former or the latter, is ludicrous. The economy _is_ people. When the
economy crashes, people's lives crash.
Conversely, if rich people looking at the dismal Dow numbers and having
a sad react by killing tens of millions of people to try to preserve
their ill-gotten fortunes, they'll be killing several percent of the
economy they say they're trying to save.
Idiot.
And that brings us to the false dilemma I mentioned at the start. I
have not seen any prominent person advocate that we throw these
quarantines to the side all at once and get back to business as if
everything is perfectly normal. I have not see anyone suggest that no
measures be taken to address the pandemic or protect ourselves against
it.
No, it's clear what measures you idiots want: no social distancing, no
shutdowns, business as usual, and of course the virus spreads massively,
so you will want access to ventilators and other medical support for
serious cases to be rationed on the basis of who can pay the most, which
means the rich will have decent care if they get a serious case while
everyone else who gets it bad enough to need oxygen or whatever is
abandoned to die.
The problem for you is, even with excellent support, half of cases that
the poor all die and there's only enough room in the lifeboats to save
*half* the rich people.
Seems like a shoddy deal to me. If I was rich, I wouldn't take it. 50%
chance of death and 50% chance of living to not have a huge desperate
cheap labor force to exploit anymore? Bleh. I'd rather lose a chunk of
my giant ill-gotten hoard (while still keeping far more than most people
will ever own in their lifetimes) while the virus is contained and have
a nearly 0% chance of dying and an excellent chance of there still being
a big, easily-exploited cheap labor force after it's over.
But then, I'm also smart enough to engage in the moral reasoning that
leads me to realize that exploiting cheap labor is *bad*, aren't I? So
maybe most of the rich will of necessity be stupid enough to take the
shitty option and flip that coin for their own lives. I guess we'll see.
1) Open the economy back up. Let young and healthy people work and feed
their families.
2) Encourage masks, or even require them, for certain industries where
transmission might be especially likely.
3) Keep nursing homes quarantined.
4) Tell other at-risk people to remain in their homes for now.
5) Test aggressively and quarantine the infected.
Good luck with that. Tests are in short supply, apparently everywhere
except for some reason South Korea.
6) Provide financial relief to at-risk people who cannot work.
Wait, what? Did ... did you just advocate giving people *welfare*?
OK, who's socking up and frogging Ubi?
7) Continued quarantines for specific regions where the outbreak is
especially bad.
My suggestions certainly are not novel or very creative.
And, of course, they won't work. It will just fester in hidden corners
and then erupt in big regional outbreaks, and sooner or later *you* will
get it.
I'm sure if smarter people than myself got to work thinking of solutions
that don't involve willful economic suicide, they could come up with some
better ones.
I'd say that the problem instead is to think of solutions that don't
involve willful *genocide*, except that we already did. It's the
lockdowns you keep bitching about every time your giant stock portfolio
takes another hit and makes you slightly less rich than before.
We are a nation of problem solvers. And good problem solvers find
solutions that don't create worse problems than they were meant to
solve.
We're trading a dangerous and immediately life-threatening problem, a
novel virus, for something easy that we've already dealt with once
before, a depression. Once the virus is gone, a Green New Deal here and
a New GI Bill there and we're golden. FDR left us the blueprints and
there's even a presidential candidate willing to put them into action
promptly after he's inaugurated ... if, that is, he survives the virus.
Maybe *that* is the real reason for advocating an end to the lockdowns.
You hope the virus will spread uncontained and kill Bernie Sanders. You
bastard.
The strategies suggested above would certainly slow the spread to some
extent. Would they slow it enough? I don't know.
I do. The answer is "nope".
Is their chance of slowing the spread good enough to justify opening up
the economy to stave off a historic collapse that would ruin many
millions of lives?
Nope.
I think so.
That's because you're an idiot. Unless you're a genocidal lunatic
instead, of course.
Enough with the caricatures and false dichotomies. This problem is too
serious for those kinds of games.
It's too serious to let privileged rich old diabetic white men call all
the shots. Get back into the kiddy corner, k0oks, and let's let the real
adults make the decisions for a change.
Broke people usually whine about people who have money.
vallor
2020-03-26 10:24:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by kensi
Nobody ever got rich except on the backs of the working poor, or even
slave labor, or else through the genocide of some aboriginal tribe,
unless they merely inherited a fortune that originated in such a manner.
Citation, please.

Because that isn't always the case. For example, I know of a local
company -- a grocery store -- that is owned by the employees. They have
three locations now, and are doing well.

And I can hear you now: "oh, oh, but that's _different_!"

You really need to think about what you're saying before making such
general proclamations -- they will be your undoing.
--
-v
Nadegda
2020-03-26 21:55:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by vallor
Post by kensi
Nobody ever got rich except on the backs of the working poor, or even
slave labor, or else through the genocide of some aboriginal tribe,
unless they merely inherited a fortune that originated in such a manner.
Citation, please.
Because that isn't always the case. For example, I know of a local
company -- a grocery store -- that is owned by the employees. They have
three locations now, and are doing well.
And I can hear you now: "oh, oh, but that's _different_!"
Are the employees *rich*? As in Bel Air mansions, Lear Jets, their own
private islands, some Congressmen in their pockets? Somehow I doubt it.

I agree with kensi here. The productivity per capita, even with
mechanization, is not (yet) so high that one can have a personal jet
with a fair distribution of the fruits of that productivity. So anyone
with one of *those* necessarily has disproportionate wealth to the value
created by their own sweat-of-brow contribution to society. And what they
have in extra abundance someone, or likely many someones, must be missing:
the wage laborers who barely keep their heads above water while doing
significantly more in the way of actual labor than your typical Lear Jet
owner.

Hence, "on the backs of the working poor".

The virus is actually helping to make this clear: a large chunk of the
workforce is furloughed, worldwide, and yet the grocery stores stay
stocked, the roofs stay over our heads -- most of us, anyway -- and
the power and water keep running. This means that the basic necessities
of life can be supplied by a small fraction of people working full-time
jobs. Everything else is some combination of "bullshit jobs" and jobs
that generate luxuries, rather than necessities. If we generously assume
that bullshit jobs (aka sinecures to ensure full employment for members
of the privileged set: white men with certain family or school
backgrounds) are near zero then something like 3/4 of the population is
(or was) employed in producing luxuries, most of which were then enjoyed
by the 1%.

I'd estimate that with full employment *and* fair distribution a person
could likely live a lower middle class to middle class lifestyle with
current mechanization levels, slowly creeping upward as the robots get
better. But not upper middle class. Not yearly Bahamas vacations or a
4000-sq.-ft. energy guzzling architectural horror show with only 3
inhabitants. And certainly not a personal Lear jet. You could maybe have
each street or neighborhood share a little Cessna and a yacht or so.
Post by vallor
You really need to think about what you're saying before making such
general proclamations -- they will be your undoing.
Is that some sort of a kookthreat?

No matter, kensi's been threatened with worse by better, and it's kensi
who is still here, while most of those who threatened her ... aren't.

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
% <***@gmail.com> admits he has erectile dysfunction:
<***@news.alt.net>
%
2020-03-26 22:07:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
FNVWe Nadegda
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
and i Nadegda have a smelly box
Skeeter
2020-03-26 22:20:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:55:52 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by vallor
Post by kensi
Nobody ever got rich except on the backs of the working poor, or even
slave labor, or else through the genocide of some aboriginal tribe,
unless they merely inherited a fortune that originated in such a manner.
Citation, please.
Because that isn't always the case. For example, I know of a local
company -- a grocery store -- that is owned by the employees. They have
three locations now, and are doing well.
And I can hear you now: "oh, oh, but that's _different_!"
Are the employees *rich*? As in Bel Air mansions, Lear Jets, their own
private islands, some Congressmen in their pockets? Somehow I doubt it.
So what? Damn you are such a crybaby.
Post by Nadegda
I agree with kensi here. The productivity per capita, even with
mechanization, is not (yet) so high that one can have a personal jet
with a fair distribution of the fruits of that productivity. So anyone
with one of *those* necessarily has disproportionate wealth to the value
created by their own sweat-of-brow contribution to society. And what they
the wage laborers who barely keep their heads above water while doing
significantly more in the way of actual labor than your typical Lear Jet
owner.
Those that have can go and get, those who do not have get nothing.
Post by Nadegda
Hence, "on the backs of the working poor".
The virus is actually helping to make this clear: a large chunk of the
workforce is furloughed, worldwide, and yet the grocery stores stay
stocked, the roofs stay over our heads -- most of us, anyway -- and
the power and water keep running. This means that the basic necessities
of life can be supplied by a small fraction of people working full-time
jobs. Everything else is some combination of "bullshit jobs" and jobs
that generate luxuries, rather than necessities. If we generously assume
that bullshit jobs (aka sinecures to ensure full employment for members
of the privileged set: white men with certain family or school
backgrounds) are near zero then something like 3/4 of the population is
(or was) employed in producing luxuries, most of which were then enjoyed
by the 1%.
I'd estimate that with full employment *and* fair distribution a person
could likely live a lower middle class to middle class lifestyle with
current mechanization levels, slowly creeping upward as the robots get
better. But not upper middle class. Not yearly Bahamas vacations or a
4000-sq.-ft. energy guzzling architectural horror show with only 3
inhabitants. And certainly not a personal Lear jet. You could maybe have
each street or neighborhood share a little Cessna and a yacht or so.
Post by vallor
You really need to think about what you're saying before making such
general proclamations -- they will be your undoing.
Is that some sort of a kookthreat?
No matter, kensi's been threatened with worse by better, and it's kensi
who is still here, while most of those who threatened her ... aren't.
They saw an easy target, killed it and moved on.
Sn!pe
2020-03-26 22:29:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:55:52 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by vallor
Post by kensi
Nobody ever got rich except on the backs of the working poor, or even
slave labor, or else through the genocide of some aboriginal tribe,
unless they merely inherited a fortune that originated in such a manner.
Citation, please.
Because that isn't always the case. For example, I know of a local
company -- a grocery store -- that is owned by the employees. They have
three locations now, and are doing well.
And I can hear you now: "oh, oh, but that's _different_!"
Are the employees *rich*? As in Bel Air mansions, Lear Jets, their own
private islands, some Congressmen in their pockets? Somehow I doubt it.
So what? Damn you are such a crybaby.
Post by Nadegda
I agree with kensi here. The productivity per capita, even with
mechanization, is not (yet) so high that one can have a personal jet
with a fair distribution of the fruits of that productivity. So anyone
with one of *those* necessarily has disproportionate wealth to the value
created by their own sweat-of-brow contribution to society. And what they
the wage laborers who barely keep their heads above water while doing
significantly more in the way of actual labor than your typical Lear Jet
owner.
Those that have can go and get, those who do not have get nothing.
Post by Nadegda
Hence, "on the backs of the working poor".
The virus is actually helping to make this clear: a large chunk of the
workforce is furloughed, worldwide, and yet the grocery stores stay
stocked, the roofs stay over our heads -- most of us, anyway -- and
the power and water keep running. This means that the basic necessities
of life can be supplied by a small fraction of people working full-time
jobs. Everything else is some combination of "bullshit jobs" and jobs
that generate luxuries, rather than necessities. If we generously assume
that bullshit jobs (aka sinecures to ensure full employment for members
of the privileged set: white men with certain family or school
backgrounds) are near zero then something like 3/4 of the population is
(or was) employed in producing luxuries, most of which were then enjoyed
by the 1%.
I'd estimate that with full employment *and* fair distribution a person
could likely live a lower middle class to middle class lifestyle with
current mechanization levels, slowly creeping upward as the robots get
better. But not upper middle class. Not yearly Bahamas vacations or a
4000-sq.-ft. energy guzzling architectural horror show with only 3
inhabitants. And certainly not a personal Lear jet. You could maybe have
each street or neighborhood share a little Cessna and a yacht or so.
Post by vallor
You really need to think about what you're saying before making such
general proclamations -- they will be your undoing.
Is that some sort of a kookthreat?
No matter, kensi's been threatened with worse by better, and it's kensi
who is still here, while most of those who threatened her ... aren't.
They saw an easy target, killed it and moved on.
Just look at that line-count, tee-hee! Paul's frothier than
a washing machine with a double dose of washing powder.
--
^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
MK
2020-03-27 01:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sn!pe
Post by Skeeter
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:55:52 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by vallor
Post by kensi
Nobody ever got rich except on the backs of the working poor, or even
slave labor, or else through the genocide of some aboriginal tribe,
unless they merely inherited a fortune that originated in such a manner.
Citation, please.
Because that isn't always the case. For example, I know of a local
company -- a grocery store -- that is owned by the employees. They have
three locations now, and are doing well.
And I can hear you now: "oh, oh, but that's _different_!"
Are the employees *rich*? As in Bel Air mansions, Lear Jets, their own
private islands, some Congressmen in their pockets? Somehow I doubt it.
So what? Damn you are such a crybaby.
Post by Nadegda
I agree with kensi here. The productivity per capita, even with
mechanization, is not (yet) so high that one can have a personal jet
with a fair distribution of the fruits of that productivity. So anyone
with one of *those* necessarily has disproportionate wealth to the value
created by their own sweat-of-brow contribution to society. And what they
the wage laborers who barely keep their heads above water while doing
significantly more in the way of actual labor than your typical Lear Jet
owner.
Those that have can go and get, those who do not have get nothing.
Post by Nadegda
Hence, "on the backs of the working poor".
The virus is actually helping to make this clear: a large chunk of the
workforce is furloughed, worldwide, and yet the grocery stores stay
stocked, the roofs stay over our heads -- most of us, anyway -- and
the power and water keep running. This means that the basic necessities
of life can be supplied by a small fraction of people working full-time
jobs. Everything else is some combination of "bullshit jobs" and jobs
that generate luxuries, rather than necessities. If we generously assume
that bullshit jobs (aka sinecures to ensure full employment for members
of the privileged set: white men with certain family or school
backgrounds) are near zero then something like 3/4 of the population is
(or was) employed in producing luxuries, most of which were then enjoyed
by the 1%.
I'd estimate that with full employment *and* fair distribution a person
could likely live a lower middle class to middle class lifestyle with
current mechanization levels, slowly creeping upward as the robots get
better. But not upper middle class. Not yearly Bahamas vacations or a
4000-sq.-ft. energy guzzling architectural horror show with only 3
inhabitants. And certainly not a personal Lear jet. You could maybe have
each street or neighborhood share a little Cessna and a yacht or so.
Post by vallor
You really need to think about what you're saying before making such
general proclamations -- they will be your undoing.
Is that some sort of a kookthreat?
No matter, kensi's been threatened with worse by better, and it's kensi
who is still here, while most of those who threatened her ... aren't.
They saw an easy target, killed it and moved on.
Just look at that line-count, tee-hee! Paul's frothier than
a washing machine with a double dose of washing powder.
I'm glad I am not the only one noticing.
Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
2020-03-26 22:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<...>
Post by Nadegda
Post by vallor
You really need to think about what you're saying before making such
general proclamations -- they will be your undoing.
Is that some sort of a kookthreat?
If it is, I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. LOL

<...>
--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregøry

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the
essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and
not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." __Henry David Thoreau
Checkmate
2020-03-27 06:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:55:52 -0000 (UTC) Nadegda put forth the
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by vallor
Post by kensi
Nobody ever got rich except on the backs of the working poor, or even
slave labor, or else through the genocide of some aboriginal tribe,
unless they merely inherited a fortune that originated in such a manner.
Citation, please.
Because that isn't always the case. For example, I know of a local
company -- a grocery store -- that is owned by the employees. They have
three locations now, and are doing well.
And I can hear you now: "oh, oh, but that's _different_!"
Are the employees *rich*? As in Bel Air mansions, Lear Jets, their own
private islands, some Congressmen in their pockets? Somehow I doubt it.
I agree with kensi here. The productivity per capita, even with
mechanization, is not (yet) so high that one can have a personal jet
with a fair distribution of the fruits of that productivity. So anyone
with one of *those* necessarily has disproportionate wealth to the value
created by their own sweat-of-brow contribution to society. And what they
the wage laborers who barely keep their heads above water while doing
significantly more in the way of actual labor than your typical Lear Jet
owner.
Hence, "on the backs of the working poor".
The virus is actually helping to make this clear: a large chunk of the
workforce is furloughed, worldwide, and yet the grocery stores stay
stocked, the roofs stay over our heads -- most of us, anyway -- and
the power and water keep running. This means that the basic necessities
of life can be supplied by a small fraction of people working full-time
jobs. Everything else is some combination of "bullshit jobs" and jobs
that generate luxuries, rather than necessities. If we generously assume
that bullshit jobs (aka sinecures to ensure full employment for members
of the privileged set: white men with certain family or school
backgrounds) are near zero then something like 3/4 of the population is
(or was) employed in producing luxuries, most of which were then enjoyed
by the 1%.
I'd estimate that with full employment *and* fair distribution a person
could likely live a lower middle class to middle class lifestyle with
current mechanization levels, slowly creeping upward as the robots get
better. But not upper middle class. Not yearly Bahamas vacations or a
4000-sq.-ft. energy guzzling architectural horror show with only 3
inhabitants. And certainly not a personal Lear jet. You could maybe have
each street or neighborhood share a little Cessna and a yacht or so.
Post by vallor
You really need to think about what you're saying before making such
general proclamations -- they will be your undoing.
Is that some sort of a kookthreat?
No matter, kensi's been threatened with worse by better, and it's kensi
who is still here, while most of those who threatened her ... aren't.
<snicker>
You and your Sister Sock are just butthurt because you're both broke-ass
bitches being used as tools by your Commie Puppetmasters. You don't see
anyone else around here whining about how "unfair" life is. You could
live in Somali and be scrounging for grubs to eat, or back in Mother
Russia, where you claim to have run away from... what a miserly malcontent
you are!
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2020
all rights reserved

http://youtu.be/wT-8Dm1VThc

***************************************************
"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as
kensi." -Nadegda
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$***@dont-email.me>
***************************************************

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Loading...