101–110 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, and most of the covid relief money the poors spent went back into the economy.
Right, but OP’s analogy was false.
To phrase child welfare in terms of a capitalist mindset: if you care about expanding your business and keeping labor costs down, you care about the size and quality of the domestic labor pool, and thus you care about the access to education, the stable living arrangements, and mental welfare of your fellow country people and their families, and thus you support welfare to your poorest country people. To do otherwise…
Unless your business is extracting something from the ground, like oil, diamonds or gold, without the help of the majority of the population. From "The Rules for Rulers" by CGP Grey, an adaptation of "The Dictator's Handbook" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wall Street Journal reports the same thing and it’s entirely consistent with what he says publicly. > The West Virginia Democrat has raised concerns that the no-strings attached benefit fuels opioid use, according to people familiar with his views. Some other Democrats and outside advocates have argued that the payments help prevent opioid use in hopes of changing his mind on work requirements. West Virginia has the…
Slightly different comment, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That [some] child poverty exists in a capitalist society does not mean that capitalism creates child poverty.
If we kept the threshold for poverty at the same threshold it was 200 years ago, we'd probably say that capitalism reduces poverty. But as the standard of living moves upward, the threshold for poverty moves up too.
Edit: Communist countries did have extensive well-functioning public health care systems (Cuba is an extant example) but that has to be balanced with the central planning in some larger communist states (namely China/Russia) that caused unprecedented famine and misery. Perhaps in an alternate timeline, if communist states weren't living in a world that was economically hostile (sanctions etc.) they might have thrived and focused on quality of life as a technology driver
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We know quite a lot about economics, especially inflation and the money supply." That isn't the case. There's an awful lot of beliefs and curve fitting to them. Hence why QE didn't cause the 2% inflation they believed it would.
> That isn't the case. It is absolutely the case; we just don't know everything. Using modern economics, we have managed inflation and other economic phenomena highly effectively. High inflation (well beyond what is happening now - look at history and at places that ignore economics), depressions, bank runs, etc. are a thing of the past. Look at economic history before the post-war era; look at places that ignore eco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the capitalist mindset you described were accurate, then we would have the kind of society you described because we’ve had a very capitalist economy from the start. But that’s not what we see, so unfortunately what you assert cannot be true. However, you’re right that we live in capitalism. And it creates child poverty.
I'm couching a problem in a capitalist frame, I made no assertion that we live in a perfectly capitalist economy. The irony is that China understands the economic value of quality of life better than the US, with the latter making a lot of fuss about the primacy of economy in decision making.
Anyway agreed on China. They've pulled 800 million people out of poverty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are ignoring his first test. "Are they committing genocide?"
Well wasn't clear whether there's a logical AND or OR between the two. In case it's OR, would you say that interventions in china[1], iraq[2], Somalia[3], Kosovo[4], Cambodia[5] would be justified? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_the_Isl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War…
Arguably it did in WW2 as well. The Nazis originally planned to dump the Jews in Africa, not kill them. The plans for the Nazis industrial slaughter were approved shortly after the US entered the war and the Nazis were slowly being boxed in.
The fact that Germany reacted to the US entering the war with industrial slaughter doesnt mean that the US was wrong to go to war of course, but it underscores the fact that by default military intervention makes everything worse - especially for the most vulnerable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't? 1) Are they committing genocide? 2) Did they attack you?
So you'd be cool with the US sitting out ww2 if japan didn't bomb pearl harbor?
Should Japan have sent troops over in the Mexican-American war of 1846 to stop America's imperial expansion into California and Texas?
And then the government stopped it and now it will go back up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s even worse than that: > Publicly, his biggest gripes are about the cost of the bill. But privately, Manchin has told his colleagues that he essentially doesn’t trust low-income people to spend government money wisely. > In recent months, Manchin has told several of his fellow Democrats that he thought parents would waste monthly child tax credit payments on drugs instead of providing for their children, accordin…
While this is terrible, let's remember that there are 50 Republican Senators, many who profess the need for the US government to help everyday American families, who also don't support the expanded CTC.