ParadeGrotesque

ParadeGrotesque, 10 days ago

@mms

Have you ever used an operating system that used a normal init and stored its configuration files in /etc/init.d/?

Then you have used System V.

@vermaden

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@SmudgeTheInsultCat

Ooooooof

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@kingu

Well, shoot, now I want one too!

ParadeGrotesque, 12 days ago

@dlakelan @economics

Why not 50% instead of 5%?

This world isn't safe with billionaires around.

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics

This can be answered easily: put a cutting off point to exclude everyone worth, say, 15 million or less. Most of these do not own stocks like billionaires. Their money is tied in brick & mortar businesses or independent careers (medical, legal, etc).

Taxing the billionaire stocks is nationalisation. The government is then able to reorganize the companies and make sure they align with public interest, without selling any stock, avoiding a market crash.

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics@a.gup.pe

I think you badly underestimate billionaires and the power of nuisance they have.

As I have said, the goal of nationalization is to get rid of the billionaires. At this stage, I would say it is almost impossible in the USA, given the political power they have.

And I have no problem with nationalization at all: several studies done in Europe have shown that careful management by the state often brings companies much better returns than unfettered capitalism.

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics@a.gup.pe

UBI is a pipe dream. You only have 3 solutions with it:

• UBI covers only the very basic essentials. It helps people, but it's only slightly better than existing solutions (food stamps, etc ...) = just perpetuating the status quo.

• UBI is a lot more generous than existing solutions but it's used to apply political pressure on people ("behave, or we'll cut your ubi!") = this is the preferred solution by the billionaires.

(1/2)

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics@a.gup.pe

• Finally, UBI allows one to live comfortably, without working. Here we hit inflation: if everyone can do that, the amounts of money we are putting into the economy inevitably results in huge inflation. Too much money chasing too few products.

The only solution to this is "fully automated luxury communism" and the end of currency as we know it. A bit too far fetched for my taste.

Again, so many billionaires want UBI it has become highly suspect.

(2/3)

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics@a.gup.pe

Instead of UBI think in terms of public services: free quality public education, university included, free quality healthcare, free quality public transportation.

Highly subsidized healthy food. Cheap, quality public housing. Subsidized renewable energy.

Building these would mean enormous benefits for everyone, would boost the economy & reduce the power of billionaires. Think Pyramid of Maslow: make sure basic needs are met and society will improve, logically.

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics

And finally: ask yourself why so many billionaires are against taxation of their wealth, while being for UBI?

Because taxation means building the public services I described, thus reducing their power and influence, while UBI can be used as a tool to put even more pressure on the 99% of us who are not millionaires or billionaires.

And taxation of the 1% is also an efficient tool to reduce their political influence. Taxation is the way to go. UBI, not so much.

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics@a.gup.pe

I have an issue with your statement: "seizing 50% of all companies results in death and destruction".

That's exactly what nationalization is. And plenty of countries had huge nationalization programs in the 50s that did not result in death and destruction. Especially if said companies collaborated with Nazi Germany or helped the Nazi death camps.

You also underestimate the power of billionaires. At this stage, you can have democracy or billionaires, not both.

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics@a.gup.pe

"Functional, non-oligopoly markets", sure, let's discuss that, because that's almost non existent today.

So let's break up oligopolies, by seizing companies & breaking them up into smaller pieces.

Wait, you mean the state is now doing a good thing? And something that is very close to nationalization? Who would have thought?!?

By the way, incorrect allocation of resources is how we get economic crises. Private companies overestimate growth & over-invest.

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics@a.gup.pe

Let me be very clear: private companies will always fail because none of them has a clear & complete picture of the market. (Which is an impossibility, but I digress...)

Misallocation of resources by the private & public sector is therefore the norm & not the exception.

The difference is that a governmental organization does not have to maximize profits, unlike the private sector, and can therefore better manage sparse resources in the public interest.

ParadeGrotesque, 11 days ago

@dlakelan @economics@a.gup.pe

Also: the public sector can tolerate losses a lot better than the private sector, precisely because it can more easily borrow money, draw on its foreign reserves, raise additional taxes and even print money at will (or all 4 at the same time!).

None of these are, of course, good long-term solutions but they can reduce the impact of bad decisions.

The question then is the management quality of the public sector, which has been abysmal in most western countries.

ParadeGrotesque, 12 days ago

@log

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqSMk2IzK2o

ParadeGrotesque, 13 days ago

@mwl

Weird... 🤔

ParadeGrotesque, 14 days ago

@matiu_bidule

Tes fesses, ok, mais avec quel fromage ?

(Pardon...)

@gblanc05

ParadeGrotesque, 14 days ago

@SailorDisco @GayDeceiver

Yet.

ParadeGrotesque, 14 days ago

@greenman @shaft

Mais surtout : très très très chauds...

ParadeGrotesque, 14 days ago

@RickiTarr

That doggo got the bluuuuuuues 😂

ParadeGrotesque, 14 days ago

@pkw @screwtape

OpenBSD is totally unaffected. And "doas" works on it as it should.

From what I understand, it's only the "portable" version of doas that has a problem, and mostly on Linux.

This said, I'd love it if #netbsd was to adopt doas in base and make sure it works as intended.

:netbsd:

ParadeGrotesque, 12 days ago

@netbsd

Thank you for reminding me I need to test 'priv' on my #NetBSD VMs... 👍

@pkw @screwtape