Well, if we had less oil, gas and coal it could make things a lot better with climate change.
Abundance can also lead to wastefullness. But generally speaking it just doesn’t matter if pretty rocks are scarce or not, if they don’t have any value in fulfilling human needs.
@Infynis@midwest.social has a great point. If you, the pleb, wears an artificial diamond and ruin the mood for the people who overpay for the blood diamonds, does devalue the status symbol.
It is the same reason why clothing brands fight so eagerly against cheap knockoffs, even if the knockoffs can be identified easily.
Scarcity of what? Food, water, sanitary infrastructure, shelter, healthcare? Yeah that is bad.
Scarcity of pretty rocks, some people want to wear as accessoires? Fine whatever. Also i wouldn’t mind the mining of scarce and pretty rocks, if it wouldn’t go with the destruction of the environment and human rights abuses.
Even if the US suddenly lost all its fighter jets, naval force, missiles and bombs. How likely would an invasion be in the next 10 to 50 years?
It is quite a big country with a big population, with a practically uninhabited and difficult to cross country in the north, and a poor drug war ridden country with significant amount of jungle in the south. To the west and east are oceans with some thousands of kilometres until the next sizable and properly inhabitated landmass.
So purely in geographics terms, invading and conquering the US is a huge pain.
Now add to it all the issues of the US dominance in global trade and the ramifications such an invasion would have.
The US doesnt need that army or MIC for defense. It is offense focused and it needs to keep murdering people all over the world to keep its wheels turning.
So much this. In my country my parents generation could afford buying a house on two middle class incomes when they were end of 20s early 30s. In my generation that is only possible with generational wealth.
The same shit happens in systems with more than two parties. You also have the problem to think about rallying behind the main party on the left or right side vs. one that is closer to your ideals but probably wont become part of the government coalition. In Germany, where i am from, we had 12 out of 16 years under Merkel with a “big coalition” of the conservative CDU and the social democrat SPD. All that happened was the SPD moving more and more to the right. Now we had a coalition that was supposedly progressive but collapsed hard as well as the Green party and liberal party FDP also moving strongly to the right. We now in 2024 have policies among the supposed center/center-left that used to be fringe far right by German standards. This is why voting “tactically” or for “the lesser evil” fails. It gives a false sense of what is demanded by the people.
Also for the narrative control just take the win of Biden in 2020 as a counter example. Despite Trump holding office the Dems managed to win.
Well, they would get my vote if they changed their policies and behaviour. If you vote them no matter what they dont have to fight for it. (Note i am not a US citizen but the same principles apply. I have similar dissapointment with the formerly progressive parties in my country moving to the right)
And we can also observe this empirically with the current election. The Dems were so tone deaf that they thought to compete over Reps not too happy with Trump, fielding people like Dick fucking Cheney as their advocates. Meanwhile they lost a lot of votes they expected to just have secure because they expected the voters to be blindly loyal hence irrelevant to their strategy.
I like to think of it in a “market” way. By voting there is a signal into the market, that their is a demand for a certain political direction. So “stocks” with that profile increase in value. This might be individual politicians, specific laws, parties, or general ideology/values.
Politicians want their portfolio to be attractive, so they get more votes. As a result they will adjust their portfolio of political positions accordingly.
If you vote “tactically” you send a false signal into the market. So instead of getting more politicians to represent the ideas you like, you reinforce them in the ideas you don’t like, as that had more buy signals. On the flip side if you send your sell signal, by removing a formally loyal vote from them, you can show them that their portfolio has gotten lopsided.
The difficulty is to think these things longer term. It is not just this election cycle, but 8 years, 12 years maybe even 20 years ahead. The way media and politicians like to represent elections got more and more pointed towards just this single one being the one and only. This is not just a problem in the US, but also countries without FPTP. Also the reporting got less about the specific policies and more about the how and who, turning it into a show of game of thrones, rather than a fight for the best ideas.
All you do by consistently voting the “lesser of two evils” is kicking the hangover down the road by keeping to drink more alcohol. You know every time that it will get worse and the sooner you get through the hangover, the sooner you could actually move on, but in fear of the hangover you grab the bottler another time.
With the measures you mentioned the problem is in particular that the current Democrats are not caring about them. They assume they will get the votes nonetheless and if they don’t it is fine because the Republicans will cover most of the donors interests anyways. Making noise only works, if it is followed by consequences. Leaving political violence aside, the only consequence a normal person can realize is not giving the vote if they aren’t heard.
This is a lie spread by corporate elites that want to make sure both parties align with their interests instead of having Democrats create a popular platform and win on that basis.
Did you learn nothing from hanging on to Biden until even the billionaire donors got scared by his dementia?
Voting for non evil is the way to go. By keeping to vote for the lesser evil, you get it to become more evil while keeping non evil out of power. This is how the system games you.
So if you don’t vote for the lesser evil it gets salty and joins the evil? Yeah i am not voting for that psycho manipulating abusive shit.
Passports weren’t a general concept until the end of the 19th century. Before they were mostly to allow passage to certain areas inside one country, rather than for movement between countries. There have been Identifications for Nobels and Diplomats though.
Anyways the whole concept is mostly a concept of modern nation states not of ancient tribalism.
The Banshees of Inisherin
i watched it in a theater, because i’ve heard the movie was good. Didn’t read up much on it beforehand and enjoyed watching it, albeit not fully getting it i guess.
It felt worth going to a theater for. Contrary to the last 3 or so Marvel movies i’ve seen in theater because friends dragged me and i ended up falling asleep every time.
Jesus was a political radical from West Asia (Middle East)
Yes, i mixed it up and corrected it, thank you.
I suggest using your political powers to move relevant things. Biden and the Dems dont do that. Instead they abuse it for nepotism
Oh you think the Democrats going low will benefit the people?
The Democrats going low will just mean that they’ll fully fuck over the people for their billionaire donors together with the Reps and then they’ll remind you that this is exactly what you asked for. And now back to work for minimum wage. The GDP isnt making itself.
You still assume, that western countries would like to establish democracies as they would consider democracy in itself a value.
But you have plenty of cases where actual democracies were overthrown violently in order to install a compliant authoritarian regime. Iran, Chile, Egypt…
It is never about democracy and the “vibes” are just a farce. It is about installing compliant regimes that grant cheap access to their natural resources, labor, trade routes, markets…
There is plenty of homophobe, transphobe, racist and otherwise bigoted people that have nothing to do with religion.
And if people would take their religion seriously instead of using it as a superficial scapegoat, cherrypicking what they like, there would be no capitalism.