I guess the only real difference is whether you pound cocaine or adderall

Yeah, not just a place to dump money, a place to speculate endlessly.

And then there's this guy

Thread's become a three-man echo chamber. Calling Wookie06. I'm counting on you, Wooks.

Profiting by ignoring laws your competitors follow isn't difficult enough that I would consider it "speculation".

Late Capitalism! https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/late-capitalism/524943/

Kitschy consumer goods like double decker armrests and muddy jeans isn't late capitalism at all, it's normal capitalism.

The fact that Goldman Sachs takes a 9% cut of all of 'em is what makes it late capitalism.

Someone needs to compile a giant interactive "late-capitalism trainwreck" infographic thingy to paint a vivid picture for us plebs.

Btw, that $400 juicer couldnt juice any fruit, you needed weekly mailed-in juice packs. And journalists discovered you could just open the packs and drink the juice. So it's $400 of pure junk.

As well, it would read a code and tell you if the juice had expired. But that's also printed on the bag.

It's very much the epitome of Silicon Valley pseudo-inventiveness.

Actually, maybe that mythical infographic I sought was right in front of us all along!



They should find the model used in this poster and make her the star of the next Sanders-stye insurgency.

BTW Jon, the way you described capitalism, as hiring cheaper labor reduces the amount of capital that can be spent, which hurts the economy, sounds similar to Marx claiming the rate of profit has a tendency to fall. Yet economists seem to dispute Marx here and think he's full of ****. Is this what you were talking about? If so, what's your response?

I hate that America has decided sleep deprivation is cool. It's not, it's horrible for your psyche and health.

Chronic sleep deprivation shares some traits with being a junkie.

So I guess in the modern economy, even if you aren't out of work and OD`ing on Fentanyl, you still have the privilege of being conferred a subset of its benefits.

Just say NO to predatory capitalism.

Capital and money aren't the same thing.

It's important to note that Marx didn't make the claim, he was responding to it. Earlier (classical) economists observed this tendency and argued that it was due to competition between firms (this theory is in fact a cornerstone of classical/neoclassical economics). I don't really understand Marx's theory, and regardless of whether it's true or not, it's clear that the crush of monopolies that dominate the markets today do not suffer from this problem.

No. I was talking about secular stagnation.

This makes me want to die. I think I'm going to get a print of that and hang it up so that I can be constantly thankful that my personality does not lend itself to busywork with no discernible result. I really rolled lucky on that.

Hey, here's some stupid **** that hit HN.

https://futurism.com/by-2030-youll-be-living-in-a-world-thats-run-by-google/

OK, well, Google has developed a reputation for not actually accomplishing much of anything, so this will be interesting.

"You fail to wake up in the morning, January 1st, 2030, because you burned to death after your Nest(tm) AI-based smoke detector couldn't connect to Google App Engine."

Seriously, though. Honeywell is kicking the **** out of Nest. And unlike Nest, they actually know how to make these kinds of things.

Google has lost every single one of their self-driving car experts, while their technology still doesn't work. Tesla is the only company with an actual product on the market. Insiders say that even boring mainstream car companies like Ford are ahead of Google at this point.

Apple built their own. Apparently it's not that hard.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Your "smart glasses" will show you ads for hot cocoa while you are drinking hot cocoa. Sure.

Yeah, sure, I bet a lot of retailers are gonna sign up to pay Google a commission.

Someone with absolutely zero shame.

Ah yes, the most convincing of supporting arguments: "etc."

citation needed.


But yeah, if Google were capable of diversification, they could totally rule the world in 13 years.

You know what's great. Those Mitsubishi wall-mounted AC/Heating units. Running ductless piping throughout the home works really well, I found. And they are relatively quiet too and comes with a simple remote for the settings.

I would hate it if they suddenly required to be connected to the internet in the near future.

You know your $100+ smoke alarms suck donkey dick when you've got famous Googlers like Brad Fitzpatrick uploading videos of himself as he collects a battery of malfunctioning Nest alarms that won't up the **** shut into a cooler and throwing it in the garage.

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsMkLaEiOY

...there's internet-connected smoke detectors, now?

Hah, that reminds me of this delusional and terrifyingly non-ironic dystopian bull****: http://academlib.com/7955/education/day_life_bitcoiner_2030

"If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president." --Hillary Clinton

Who. Cares. Jesus, can this woman just go away?

HRC 2020

Even worse, look at what her ardent supporters are saying about that Tweet.





Hillary's strongest supporters are pretty cultlike.

Gotcha, I shouldn't have screwed up money with capital because that's pretty obvious. It seems though that your view is Keynesian? It seems the supporters of the theory in the 1980's/1990's turned out right.

These are the people who wax endlessly about how terrible people who vote 3rd party are, and still blame Comey for everything.

I did learn something new though. Comey reopened his investigation because of something he read in the Podesta emails. Kind of confirms the legitimacy of the emails..

Just to be clear, it wasn't a tweet, but part of a speech she made which is being widely quoted in the media.

But when I went to go read the speech, all I saw was sour grapes about Comey ruining her chance to win, so....

Doesn't really matter either way tbh

I guess giving a speech is a step up from Trumplike twitter rants though

Clinton doesn't campaign in Michigan, loses Michigan, supporters blame 3rd party voters

No. Keynesianists focus on fiscal and monetary carrots (contrasted with monetarists, who think imaginary carrots are enough). My view is expressly that no amount of positive inducement is sufficient to dampen the business cycle. Carrots do not work without sticks.

It's unfair to call those comments cult-like. They attribute to her a level of decency and integrity that I doubt she has. But there seems to be a double standard. Many leftists who do criticize HRC don't criticize Obama's supporters for having an irrational fondness for their guy, even though his supporters express a similar personal attachment him. Perhaps the only difference is leftists think he's more deserving of it than Hillary.

or maybe you're SEXIST!! :hist101::neckbeard:

****ing lmao thank you for bringing this to my attention I haven't been looking at the news

This is an alright take on 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/02/my-one-contribution-to-the-autopsies-of-the-2016-presidential-election/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.2f1cbeca1fcf

It's true that the odds were stacked against Hillary, just because she was running as a democrat. But Trump was also a uniquely unpopular candidate, whom a surprisingly large part of the political and media establishment from both parties opposed. If the democrats had selected someone else as their candidate, that person may have been more able to overcome the disadvantages any democrat would've faced.

Still, the fact that both candidates were so unpopular and were both plagued by a constant stream of scandals was one thing that made the last election so unique.

The only thing anybody should learn from the 2016 US presidential election is the fact that FPTP doesn't work.

Donald Trump never would have floated to the top if it weren't for that exceptionally split mainstream Republican vote during the primaries. Or even if two thirds of those interchangeable generic Republican candidates got a clue early on and dropped out/endorsed each other when they should have, like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, ad nauseam.

"I agree completely with my colleague. *glances to campaign manager, who is sweating and gesturing wildly* Um, I mean, except I agree with him more than he agrees with himself. Also, I love America more."

Why do those HRC supporters say Bernie supporters are misogynistic? I hope their only reason is not that Bernie supporters didn't vote for the woman. Or maybe I hope it is, because if they have some other reason, it may well be even dumber.

Does she really still have supporters? What the heck for, and what would they be supporting?

Autistic screeching.

The entire shtick is that Bernie is the candidate for crypto-white-nationalists on the left. This is because they think his struggle entirely ignores PoC, women and other disadvantaged people. And since he drew support from Clinton, he was accidentally supporting Trump.

Trump quoted Bernie in a speech, which makes Bernie Hitler-lite.

So, autistic screeching*.

* not that there's nothing to the idea that there's a sort of "brocialism" which can be kinda racist, but this **** is just ridiculous

Three reasons.

1.) Sanders's support skewed young, college-educated white male.
2.) He was unusually popular among MRA, which ranges from misogynist to "misogynist". (All movements aside from gender feminism are "misogynist".)
3.) It is literally the only way some people can mentally reconcile how badly their strategic vote for a disliked establishment candidate backfired.



http://www.a-eon.com/?page=x1000