1,241 karma · joined November 17, 2016
Those who own capital did not want competition, businesses never want competition but are forced by good governments to deal with it, in this case the government which the Capitalists own did nothing to stop them. SMEs were larger part of the US economy than big business. Now big business is using tech to destroy SMEs, or even various protected monopolies like taxis. These are not political decisions, they are capital backed decisions. They can be undone only with an organized populace. So far the propaganda war has been won by capital. But the populace is quickly becoming disillusioned by the American Dream. And so the rich have scapegoated immigrants. But that's only going to work for so long.'
Most growth in the US has been and continues to be captured by Capital. Entrepreneurs usually get a small piece... Capital does most of the work and those who own it eat most of the pie when it grows. Disparity grows and power becomes consolidated. They buy up more and more patents to keep competition out. They make third world countries into their bitch. It's a vicious cycle of perfected power consolidation that needs to be broken up. It's not healthy for anyone... other than idiot consumers that will buy anything advertised not caring about who is producing it, on what terms, and who it's hurting and whether or not it's sustainable. All things you buy have to be replaced and if there is no competition and all these monopolies than the things that you own, like you car, will eventually own you through the loan you will pay to buy it... Same goes with all things which will be reduced to services owned by a few which collect most of the profit.
Then what would you call the 9,000 or so civilians killed by US and allied forces in the past 10 years. Or the 30,000 injured civilians?
O'Rly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War#Muja...
> The mujahideen favoured sabotage operations. The more common types of sabotage included damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines and radio stations, blowing up government office buildings, air terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and January 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. The mujahideen surveyed firing positions that they normally located near villages within the range of Soviet artillery posts, putting the villagers in danger of death from Soviet retaliation. The mujahideen used land mines heavily. Often, they would enlist the services of the local inhabitants, even children. Mujahideen praying in Shultan Valley, 1987
> They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members, and laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young communist party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 30 km of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On September 4, 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard.
> Mujahideen groups used for assassination had three to five men in each. After they received their mission to kill certain government officials, they busied themselves with studying his pattern of life and its details and then selecting the method of fulfilling their established mission. They practiced shooting at automobiles, shooting out of automobiles, laying mines in government accommodation or houses, using poison, and rigging explosive charges in transport.
In May 1985, the seven principal rebel organizations formed the Seven Party Mujahideen Alliance to coordinate their military operations against the Soviet army. Late in 1985, the groups were active in and around Kabul, unleashing rocket attacks and conducting operations against the communist government.
> After Taraki was murdered the new Afghan Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin repeated requests for Soviet military support, at least to protect his residence. Finally, in December the Politburo decided to deal with the situation in Afghanistan,[8] and in early December sent special forces which attacked Amin's palace and killed him, putting the exiled Babrak Kamal in his place. These forces were subsequently reinforced by the 40th Army which entered Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. As the Kremlin foresaw, this intervention would cause problems around the world for the USSR, with the policy of detente and, not least, at the forthcoming Olympic Games due to take place in summer 1980 in Moscow.[9] The result was a far-reaching boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, supported not only by the United States but by many of the 65 other invited countries that did not take part.
> At its greatest extent the Soviet military contingent in Afghanistan numbered 100,000 personnel. This presence remained for a decade and kickstarted U.S. and Saudi funding for Islamic Mujahideen groups opposed to both the Afghan government and the Soviet military presence. The local Mujahideen, along with fighters from several different Arab nations (Pathan tribes from across the border also participated in the war; they were supported by the Pakistani ISI), fought the Soviet forces to a standstill. On 24 January 1989 Gorbachev's Politburo took the decision to withdraw most of the Soviet forces,[10] while continuing to provide military assistance to the Afghan government.[11] Eventually, in-fighting within the Mujahideen led to the rise of warlords in Afghanistan, and from them emerged the Taliban.[12] The Soviets left behind the only highway in the country as well as many concrete structures built in the major cities, and airfields that are still in use (e.g. at Bagram).
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
Please list a set of economic truths. Any set will be good enough as long as it can make reliable predictions that can be tested in the real world.
> You can use any science to wrap up political decisions.
You could, but the point is not to. Or if you want to then make sure that the science is predictive.
> Be more specific. Who said what?
When you are talking about the general facts that economics is often prescriptive but at the same time can be shown to be unpredictive which proves that it is not fit for this task. Yet economists and their political allies continue to argue that it is. Maybe it's better than simply political arguments and maybe the justification for supporting the orthodoxy is in line with that. That you're scared of the political outcome and so economics is a safer option.
Type 2 chaotic system. Economists never know wtf they are talking about. They are speaking about history. You can not make conclusions from history. The more dense your non-sense, the easier it is to bullshit. You have a pool of economists, you are a rich person or you are a political party that subscribes to certain political myths. From the pool you find the guy that says what you want to hear, they become your champion. The news papers that support you start talking about them. The universities that they grew from receive more funding from you, where you have various schools. You start talking about their theories and how they make perfect sense. You use that to push your political objectives and get policies passed. Things get fucked. Those policies fall out of favour, but not before making millions if not billions for certain people who pushed those. Wait a decade, find a new economist, rinse and repeat.
If the plan above was to be implemented and the same tools used by corporations to increase profit and charge more for everything were used then it's a possibility that finite resources would quickly become luxury goods that generate tons of profit which is then used to increase their renewal, or for instance something like water to clear them better before releasing it back.... for that profit to be used to lobby governments to pass regulations to better protect water supplies from micro plastics, etc.
America in its reign is responsible for that itself, it's also saved hundreds of thousands if not millions. So it's nothing new. Mao killed millions, was no big thing, and the modern CCP thinks that he's the reason for China's eventual success. CCP around for a hundred or more years something similar is bound to happen, just see what they are doing the Uigurs. So yeah that sort of rhetoric really doesn't fly in the face of political reality where empires kill and starve millions without batting an eye. WWII killed 55 million, and I don't regret that it happened. I wish it didn't have to happen this way, but I don't see any other way to curtail CCP's growth or power... if this does not happen then the most likely outcome is CCP will be triumphant and control the significant portion of the world for many years during which it will exercise its power and cost many people their lives and freedom.
Yeah in some fantasy Bitcoin world millennials say that. Who might say shit like this is Venezuelans or the Iranians. Don't know if BTC is working for them at all these days.