sweetpotato @ sweetpotato @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

199

Joined

2 yr. ago

You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That's a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people's needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it's a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don't get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I've said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.

It's almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequality in the world has been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it's basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.

So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don't know about.

This is a very interesting thing to point out, but I believe you are not realising how intrinsically tied the generations of women unpaid work is to the economic system.

"mainstream economic theory is obsessed with the productivity of waged labour while skipping right over the unpaid work that makes it all possible, as feminist economists have made clear for decades. That work is known by many names: unpaid caring work, the reproductive economy, the love economy, the second economy."

"the household provision of care is essential for human well-being, and productivity in the paid economy depends directly upon [the core economy]. It matters because when – in the name of austerity and public-sector savings – governments cut budgets for children’s daycare centres, community services, parental leave and youth clubs, the need for care-giving doesn’t disappear: it just gets pushed back into the home. The pressure, particularly on women’s time, can force them out of work and increase social stress and vulnerability. That undermines both well-being and women’s empowerment, with multiple knock-on effects for society and the economy alike."

Doughnut economics - Kate Raworth

Capitalism thrived and keeps thriving in concentrating capital because it is able to get away with not accounting for the value it extracts. This is true for this example of unpaid labour as well as for natural resources extraction, ecosystem damage etc(we are beginning to realize this with carbon tax). That's the cornerstone of the system function, not just a side effect. The unpaid labour may be starting to be dealt with in the West, but this just means it is aggressively outsourced in third world countries. Without these so-called economic externalities there is no profit (or extremely little of it).

I'd like to see any scientific study that reassures at least a little that this won't have terrible ramifications for ecosystems and the food chain.

We know too little, we are shortsighted and we have a bad record of intervening with nature.

Yes it's obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody's arguing that. What I'm talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.

No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It's not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that's just one of the problems. It's the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).

It's also that Google could have been taxed more(I'm sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.

So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn't replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that...cool

I didn't say I don't find differences between them, you are putting words in my mouth once again. I said that the differences are miniscule to me considering how ideologically opposite they are to me. I deeply care about what they do, if I didn't care, I wouldn't hate them so much. This argument doesn't make any sense. If I don't care about what they do, then why would I hate them?

Am I spreading voter apathy? Apathetic are the people that go vote for these two oligarchs without thinking about it ever. These fanatics are apathetic. I'm actually trying to make people think about it. I hate them and I'm explaining why it is so, I'm not apathetic about them and I don't want people to be so, I want people to hate them as well, why is it so hard to grasp? Why do you say unrelated, wrong stuff and have me waste my time answering them? This is so clearly not what I said.

For the last part I don't know what to say honestly. You say I don't know how the status quo works(?) and your argument for it is some of the most vague phrases out together ever. "We had governments in Europe, America, Asia and Africa that worked against corporate interests until people became apathetic about it". What am I supposed to say to this lmfao. No justification, nothing specified, no thought put into this, just vague, unrelated words put together.

If people like you, on the dnc payroll call me fascist(even in the most shameless way) I'm doing something right. This was such a waste of time lol

You are so clueless and excessively confident I don't know why I keep on replying to you.

Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don't depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?

Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it's an unprofitable investment. It's in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.

Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That's why people would subscribe. And that's why they aren't touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don't run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good

As for the last part I don't even know what to say honestly. You don't even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?

You're obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn't even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn't answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I've already addressed.

If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.

They don't sensationalise stuff because their income doesn't depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don't depend on clicks, because they don't depend on ads to make profit. They don't want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.

Why do you think I'm imagining this or that I'm thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I'm following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.

"exactly what I want" is so funny to me, when those 2-3 parties are ideologically entirely opposite to me. In every core political topic they are working against what I stand for. So speak for yourself, we are not the same.

In the second paragraph we have the same old stupid false dilemma I'm tired of hearing. I'm a fascist for wanting an actual democracy more than the oligarchy we have now, that protects, serves the interests and perpetuates the existence of these monopolies right?

Also, I'm sure my critique about the revolving door, the oligarchs controlling and funding the politicians and promoting them in their media are the "lines made by anti-democratic institutions". I'm sure they say those things and I'm sure the mega corporations are not thriving and better than ever with the system we have now lol.

Not only didn't you answer my critique but you didn't even acknowledge it. Did it bother you so much that I critiqued the status quo? This is one of the most bad faith answers I've ever gotten, good job👍

What is the point of this question? My critique of the current state of "democracy" is about how undemocratic it is and why this is not a good thing and that it should be more democratic. I'm not advocating for even less democracy, I'm advocating for more. It's not either this oligarchy we are living in, or corporatism

There should be a post about all the non-profit, grassroots, funded exclusively by the people journalist sites and media that people know of.

We need to share and learn about all the media we should be supporting and getting our news from. It's one of the foundations for an actual democracy and a better society.

Till you realize that you actually only have 2-3 realistic voting options in every country and that these candidates are funded and promoted by said corporate monopolies. This is in fact a necessary prerequisite for a successful election campaign. Not to mention the revolving door.

Different roles, same people.

If you don't pay to get your news, someone else does, and that someone might not have the same interests as you do.

Support media initiatives that are funded exclusively by the people, not by the state or the oligarchs.

Yeah totally, they give too little, it's always performative, to distract and to use as talking points, they never roll back republican legislation (Clinton for example) and they always have the same line with republicans for the core capitalist matters, like foreign policy, military, police budget etc. It's a made up dilemma 100%.

I just have to somehow approach people who disagree, I can't be so absolute, that's all lol

You do realize what instant you are in right?

The dems are not slightly left, they are right wingers, just not far right. You are voting for the right wing, for the billionaires, the weapon manufacturers, the oligarchs.

You don't seem willing to listen to a counterargument, but just in case, you might need to consider where you would draw your red line for the lesser evil party. Cause there is necessarily for everyone a red line beyond which both parties would be indistinguishable (think of Hitler and the other party being again Hitler but if he funded the healthcare system a little more - these two alternatives gotta be universally indistinguishable). And since we established that, you should probably realize that for a lot of people that red line has been crossed long ago.

To make myself feel morally superior is an absolutely wild thing to say for a genocide.

On one hand I think it's very positive that everyone starts using decentralised platforms that don't run on profit, that work for their users and not their shareholders, but on the other hand having a space mostly without conservatives is great.

I'm not saying you have to know all the politics of the region. But I believe it's really important to realize that what we are witnessing isn't the consequence of one or two bad governments but a structural problem of the colonial Israeli state. Its foundation is one of prejudice against the native populations, land and property theft, mass expulsions, violence, repression and population control.

It can never be otherwise, because that would require them to return the stolen homes and land to their rightful owners(meaning that millions of refugees who have been waiting since nakba could return), give equal rights to natives and as a consequence give up on the Jewish state. Then you'd end up with a state with a pretty big majority of native Arabs and Jews mixed with equal rights, so essentially a Palestine. That's why Israel can never be anything but a neocolonial, apartheid, genocidal state.