hotelbravo722

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] hotelbravo722 5 points 1 month ago

Then what is necessary violence? When does the rhetoric of an candidate of a major party come to the point when you can call it fascist?

Calling a politician who

  • Fetishes an imagined great past.
  • Claims immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country"
  • Get policy advice from individuals who call themselves christian nationalists and Neo-reactionaires.
  • And has admitted to becoming a dictator on day 1 of his presidency.

a fucking fascist isn't being too extreme. Its calling a spade a spade and a duck a duck.

[–] hotelbravo722 22 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Why not? A Fascist getting elected president of the most powerful military force on the planet seems like a reasonable time to start rioting.

[–] hotelbravo722 6 points 1 month ago

I mean the rate of inflation is cooling, however the prices of basic goods are still high.

[–] hotelbravo722 18 points 1 month ago

Good, now get me off this planet.

[–] hotelbravo722 1 points 2 months ago

Not how economics work.

[–] hotelbravo722 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Agreed geoengineering is bad science/engineering IMO. You can't know what the long term effects would be until after its been deployed. The safest bet would be to just ditch fossil fuels but that's not as sexy.

[–] hotelbravo722 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

An economic system that is predicated on perpetual growth and resource extraction will eventually collapse as there is no more growth or resources to extract. Everyone is tapped out and there is nothing more you can squeeze. So it's not surprising that the people on the lower end of the economic pole are taking what they need to survive, if the economy can't provide for your basic needs then fuck the economy.

[–] hotelbravo722 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean yeah shit's toxic. How it's allowed in the regular food supply is beyond me.

[–] hotelbravo722 2 points 3 months ago

Who said Gov is an inefficiency engine? That sounds more like neo-liberal dogma then actual peer reviewed work.

[–] hotelbravo722 1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Then perhaps reforming the commons? Agricultural land & surplus are owned in common by the people who live in the area. Government pays for the production of those food stuffs and only gets a nominal % tax on the surplus.

[–] hotelbravo722 12 points 3 months ago

The land barons of CA are no joke. They are a problem that we are going to have to deal with one way or another.

[–] hotelbravo722 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I agree the money is going to come from the monetary supply and government acting as buyer and distributor of goods would be incredibly problematic. A subsidy of some kind for domestic production + placing a max profit markup IMO would be a more effective method.

view more: ‹ prev next ›