371–380 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also a variant of ‘exploitation starts at home’.
Also a variant of rule 211: "Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No actual smart people think that UBI is an effective answer to anything. The math simply doesn't work. Those claiming that UBI is the answer are either innumerate or are making ideological claims at odds with objective reality.
UBI would have an expense comparable to the entire current welfare state, which is a large part of the federal budget even in America--much larger than defense spending, for example. However, GDP keeps going up, and many people would argue that "real" labor force participation keeps going down (e.g., bullshit service sector jobs, which mostly provide value to customers who want to feel superior to someone). At some p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much all sports (soccer might be a singular exception) are "regional" in this sense.
I don't think it's quite that limited. Basketball is pretty much worldwide, so is tennis (and golf, up to a point at least). Cricket is played in a minority of countries, but those countries are scattered across the world so it's not exactly "regional".
Is it played worldwide? Sure, but so is volleyball. It's certainly not a culturally significant sport everywhere. I think my country has a basketball league, but I don't know literally anything about it. The only player I can recall the name of is Michael Jordan.
> is tennis (and golf, up to a point at least)
Both are sports for rich (countries) only. How many tennis players you know are from Africa?
> Cricket is played in a minority of countries, but those countries are scattered across the world so it's not exactly "regional".
You can think of the Commonwealth as a "logical region". Cricket is popular only in a couple of countries with common history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a shittily written article, staining the Adam Smith name. Nationalising a bunch of critical industries isn't "socialism" and the article utterly fails to explain how it is or why it's related. Historical UK, and modern France, Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia also had multiple crucial industries which were fully nationally owned. Were they socialist too?
Private companies needed to obtain license [0] from the govt to start or to expand. Some companies were even prosecuted for producing more than what was allowed. This was at least Nehru's (first Prime Minister) version of Democratic Socialism. [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also a variant of rule 211: "Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them."
Is this a Ferengi Rule of Acquisition like "Treat people in your debt like family ... exploit them"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private companies needed to obtain license [0] from the govt to start or to expand. Some companies were even prosecuted for producing more than what was allowed. This was at least Nehru's (first Prime Minister) version of Democratic Socialism. [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
That's still not what socialism means. Absurdly tight government control over the economy, and the existence of a private market economy, doesn't mean that workers owned the means of production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
once every four years (and that's if you're good enough to make it to multiple olympics) isn't going to pay the bills
This doesn't make sense as 1) it entirely depends on the prize and the financing infrastructure around it 2) athletes can participate in other competitions besides the Olympics
2) yeah, but who watches those? and if there's nobody watching then there's not much money in it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this a Ferengi Rule of Acquisition like "Treat people in your debt like family ... exploit them"?
Yes, all three quotes in this subthread are :).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You're on the team, but you have to fund your own trip to the Olympics to compete." ... "No not like that!" Never knew if it was real but I've seen on reddit several times that letter someone got from their employer chastising them for not owning a newer, nicer vehicle, since they were making good money at their job and it was "hurting the reputation of the business" that they were driving effectively a poor person'…
It's funny, I drive a 22 year old car, by far the oldest at my workplace parking. I've been talking about getting a newer car but haven't been able to bring myself to spend 35K on one. It's running joke in the office, colleagues will ask if I've bought the new car yet every week.