A fan of Zizek film analysis? That’s definitely one of his positions, related to how much post-apocalyptic media still portrays capitalism in practice post-apocalypse.
Just curious, do you want everyone living in cookie cutter multifamily boxes or are people allowed to have houses and different size pieces of land and buildings in your utopia?
Tell me what type of society you are imagining please, in the real world it is already difficult for the average entrepreneur not to evade VAT on at least 30% of his purchases,
because if we don’t talk about Nordic countries or Switzerland then I don’t see it feasible how people can accept even more interventions from the government in their lives.
If the money for the bailouts had been distributed to the people, we could have paid the mortgages to keep our houses and pay down the debt, AND saved the banks. Could you imagine?
Obama was a cool guy, but he wasn’t a progressive leader in the party. He couldn’t get congressional democrats to agree on pizza toppings, and the GOP was in lockstep to obstruct anything Obama or the democrats wanted to do.
They also illegally held up senate confirmations, and then Kennedy got sick and died. It was still a missed opportunity for some genuine leadership. Sadly, Obama seemed to be suffering under the delusion that bipartisanship would be at all possible.
Its not economically feasible because modern economics functions to create monetary value not tangible value for our society. You shouldn’t view it through the lense of what is “economically feasible” we should view it through the lense of what we should value as a society. Homelessness exists as a motivating coercive force to keep us buying into a system that would kick us to the curb if any of us were dealt a few bad hands in life. Its why our insurance is tied to our employment. The system is fundamentally broken for humanity to exsist inside of healthily, so much so that alot of us cant even imagine a society outside of it.
Didn’t the bailouts return less money with inflation though? We can’t even give students less interest than inflation with student loans. If the tables were turned the banks wouldn’t have taken less than 5% interest.
Yes, the private sector did have enough capital to cover those loans. The public sector did it because it was a bad investment when you count opportunity cost.
deleted by creator
Have you heard of this idea called “taxes?”
More than that, are you familiar with the idea of taxes being spent on more than just bloated military and police?
Its easier, for most, to imagine the end of the world than the end of Capitalism.
A fan of Zizek film analysis? That’s definitely one of his positions, related to how much post-apocalyptic media still portrays capitalism in practice post-apocalypse.
Haven’t heard of em, I’ll have to check em out though!
Slavoj Zizek / Pervert’s Guide to Ideology / Pervert’s Guide to Cinema
Sounds like I really should check this out.
Just curious, do you want everyone living in cookie cutter multifamily boxes or are people allowed to have houses and different size pieces of land and buildings in your utopia?
Tell me what type of society you are imagining please, in the real world it is already difficult for the average entrepreneur not to evade VAT on at least 30% of his purchases, because if we don’t talk about Nordic countries or Switzerland then I don’t see it feasible how people can accept even more interventions from the government in their lives.
Can you tell me how to get to the fantasy land you are living in where this is possible?
deleted by creator
Stop JAQing off
Questions no one ever asks about bailouts or the military.
If the money for the bailouts had been distributed to the people, we could have paid the mortgages to keep our houses and pay down the debt, AND saved the banks. Could you imagine?
We had a Democratic supermajority and a Democrat in the White House at the time. If it ever stood a chance of happening, it was then.
And it wasn’t even considered.
Obama was a cool guy, but he wasn’t a progressive leader in the party. He couldn’t get congressional democrats to agree on pizza toppings, and the GOP was in lockstep to obstruct anything Obama or the democrats wanted to do.
They also illegally held up senate confirmations, and then Kennedy got sick and died. It was still a missed opportunity for some genuine leadership. Sadly, Obama seemed to be suffering under the delusion that bipartisanship would be at all possible.
And?
Do you have a cost analysis on giving everyone free housing? I’d wager it’s astronomically higher than bailouts or the military.
Society should work towards a better life for all, not better profits for a few.
I don’t disagree, but that platitude has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Your comic said to cancel all rent and mortgages and give everyone a house, which is not even remotely economically feasible.
Its not economically feasible because modern economics functions to create monetary value not tangible value for our society. You shouldn’t view it through the lense of what is “economically feasible” we should view it through the lense of what we should value as a society. Homelessness exists as a motivating coercive force to keep us buying into a system that would kick us to the curb if any of us were dealt a few bad hands in life. Its why our insurance is tied to our employment. The system is fundamentally broken for humanity to exsist inside of healthily, so much so that alot of us cant even imagine a society outside of it.
Lots of “what”, zero “how”.
The second i read this comment, the State Anthem of the USSR got stuck in my head.
Yawn. Let us know when you have actionable steps. Daydreaming is easy and worthless.
deleted by creator
The bailouts were loans. The us govt got that money back.
Those banks should have been punished though, allowed to fail.
Didn’t the bailouts return less money with inflation though? We can’t even give students less interest than inflation with student loans. If the tables were turned the banks wouldn’t have taken less than 5% interest.
They didn’t know that they would get the money back at the time.
Yes, the private sector did have enough capital to cover those loans. The public sector did it because it was a bad investment when you count opportunity cost.