weirdstuff

Too complex for an HN post and ultimately my definition will far too short, so I'll just cop out by saying "I know it when I see it".

Usually defined by a relatively more weighted public sector ownership and operation of the factors of production. It's about worker control. And my overall feelings of it is relative to places like the U.S. which practices a form of democratic-ish corporatist oligarchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

I don't think anything like "true socialism" could exist. Just like "true capitalism" or a "true scotsman".

This is a sentiment that I think is termed "technological utopianism" and it has limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_utopianism

Cuba is a cherry-picked example and is misleading.

Other socialist countries that are doing better: China; Denmark; Finland; Netherlands; Canada; Sweden; Norway; Ireland.

Don't forget Cuba has been forced into economic isolation by the US. And places like Venezuela and Detroit were overly dependent on too few industries and are plagued by massive wealth inequality.

You can also find persistent systemic poverty in capitalism: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0185084916...

"Democracy at Work" http://www.democracyatwork.info/

Kind of makes actual democracy obsolete I suppose; we seemingly now require technocratic governance and do not require attention towards other public sentiment outside of technical/legal analysis. I get this perspective, but I think it's very exclusionary and dismissive.

Limiting input to that which addresses procedural questions or point-of-order effectively narrows conversation so that other perspectives outside of that window is made irrelevant.

Effectively pushing the public out of policymaking. (Good riddance to all that white noise!)

I don't think it matters much who occupies the oval office. I fear the U.S. is in a systematic regression due to deeper economic issues that so far are being totally unaddressed and unidentified in public.

I hope other nations can begin exerting pressure on this country so that we are forced to begin considering substantial reforms (apparently a long-lived fiscal crisis isn't enough); otherwise these issues may worsen and spread elsewhere as they have already begun doing.

(Divest away from U.S. securities, for example. Challenge the status of U.S. dollar.)

I know Trump voters, the majority of whom don't like Trump at all.

Their reasoning: "Why delay the inevitable? How else to wake up the country but to elect a disaster? As things get worse we're ready as we'll ever be."

(FYI: I'm in Michigan where enough of us held back our Clinton vote to send a message that we need a progressive non-corporatist. Margin of victory for Trump was smaller than empty presidential sections. It's over in Michigan for the DNC.)

Let's get real. They weren't large campaigns; Russian firms/orgs (RT, really) hardly spent anything! So far the disclosed numbers are less than a 1/4 million; as opposed to the roughly $6.8 spent domestically.

Billions and billions spent by U.S. actors as opposed to less than a million spent by Russian actors! Russian efforts are immaterial and likely were intended for commercial reasons rather than political ones. (RT wants views!)

I'm getting tired of this obtuseness. Russia had negligible impact and there's nothing out there showing they did. So far what we have is speculation and finger pointing like I've never witnessed post-election.

The disastrous 2016 election is just dragginggggggg outtttt foreverrrrr.

Compared to the rest of the developed world, the U.S. does have very poor working conditions. I'd also say a majority of U.S. workers doesn't have a clue and has little experience to make a comparison anyhow.

I actually like people outside my country reminding my fellow citizens that we do have it pretty bad and it is in our power to change it if we decide to do that one day. The message might eventually soak in after some decades have passed.

And why are some posts, like yours, collapsed by default? And some accounts have default auto-dead comments. It's not transparent how this all works.

Edit: looks like another commenter mentioned this too. Sorry for the dupe.

They could just as easily be real people under alt accounts. It's not that obvious.

Many of my real-life contacts push meme-like propaganda all the time on facebook. I don't think they're paid to do it. Banning that stuff through automation is likely prone to error.

I don't really get the identity politics thing. Aren't all politics identity politics?

Rhetorical question: are republicans really alone in this?

It is rigged in that it's propped up by a systemic weakness directly created by public policy. "Rigged" is a semi-accurate description but still controversial because for many it implies a Dr. Evil scenario (hence the voted indignation) but the sooner people wake up to what's happening the softer the landing can be.

I would really like to invest in stocks, but I'm afraid of current valuations and cannot possibly time such an odd and manipulated market. I'm afraid of many bonds as well. Where to invest? Real estate? Maybe just carefully select stock-by-stock case-by-case? I know index funds are weird right now. Ugh.

But that's not even significant when you look at the billions spent by U.S. campaigns and orgs. Few hundred thousand from Russia isn't enough to do anything.

Totally agree; it was too obvious after the upset Trump victory when the Dems immediately started going down the list of scapegoats – especially Russia. I really don't think Russia's influence comes close to domestic influence, especially after looking at the billions spent by the U.S. campaigns.

And I've been very disappointed in U.S. mainstream press for repeating these partisan talking points with very little objective analysis. They complain about RT meddling in our election but our own consolidated media has opened the door to all of this IMO.

How's it sneaky? Business management and shareholders routinely try to shut down unionizing all the time throughout the last two centuries. My buddy is a manager at a national retail chain and often comments on how proactively anti-union they are, just like their competitors.

Other demographic groups like the ones you pointed out really don't have that same collective effect on the bottom line for shareholders across industries like those that unionize, whose only trait in common is that of a provider of labor.

In my own experience a track record is meaning less and less, and employers are really starting to fixate on credentials. It's very weird and disconcerting to a fellow like myself who likes to believe an impressive record should speak for itself. But apparently it's not speaking as loudly as it used to.

There really is a "cult of the degree" and I really don't get it. Is the field getting saturated and employers are finding it necessary to erect barriers? Does this, an average, make good fiscal sense? I would think successful, relevant experience is something (that when verified) would reduce risk for businesses.

I'm not sure you know enough to compare the two.

Disease, for example, is mostly a product of settled societies, not hunter-gatherers. Crime was a different issue as well, when tribes knew all the members. And sure, tribes had conflicts, but they were often not as violent as the total wars of the last couple centuries.

I'm surprised so many people who know nothing except modern society are so quick to make sweeping assumptions about a distant and unrecorded past.

Costa Rica? (I don't know, just putting it out there. I hear there are lots of U.S. expats there.)

Too glib; they've been holding pretty steady at 8 hours, mainly due to regulation. Other work has increased hours, such as in many areas of health care, for example. Many folks also patch together multiple jobs in order to achieve a livable income and can work upwards of 12-16 hour days. I know several, personally.

Keynes predicted we'd be down to 3 or 4 hours a day by now, but that never happened due (partly) to the ever-increasing competitive ability/imposition that technology allows managers and shareholders to impose on labor in an effort to maximize economic potential and productivity.

And they don't want to remain under their current status, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_R...

Please excuse this more radical point, but part of me is ok with rescinding the visas to force some investment back into the domestic population. (Out of necessity.)

We have a large enough population that there's no reason we should be hurting for talent, and part of me wonders how much of that disinvestment has been enabled by importing instead of breeding our needs. We're exploiting poor conditions in other countries in order to attract their best, as well as creating poor conditions here for natural born citizens to suppress their demands from resource owners.

He's not normalizing anything, he's setting the context which I happen to account for as well; for example our country directly attempted to (and did) influence the Brexit campaign and Scottish referendum – and not just our media but our elected officials.

Our news outlets have been caught colluding with certain candidates – federal funds is one of countless vectors in which governments/elites can steer the news. Think of Donna Brazil, for example. She had to leave MSNBC after forwarding debate questions to Clinton.

Is it illegal for a seller to price something in the U.S. in bitcoin (or a some other form of exchange) and not dollars?

If cigarettes became a more attractive medium of exchange, is it illegal to use that medium between two private, consenting parties?

Neither one of you can know for sure. Could be a bit of both.

"Currencies have legal support. It will blow up."

Diamond reminds me of a bartender warning his patrons not to smoke pot. (Because alcohol is mostly legal, while pot is mostly illegal.)

Also, fiat currencies need to maintain public confidence, part of which comes from a legal code. The remainder comes from management of the currency and its underlying domestic economy. I suspect a great deal of the value of Bitcoin may come from an eroding confidence of the U.S. dollar; especially after the events of '08 and the ongoing weak economy.

That's more ok for a smaller outfit, but now that Google is abusing their monopolistic market position it's not as ok.

Not to worry, the days of the U.S. government busting up monopolies seem behind us.

No, I think we need more FUD given what has just occurred. SSN and sensitive financial data of over half of U.S. adults obtained by criminals. Nice.