CorruptedArk

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago

How did it feel to melt that one time?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Rough, got laid off last week my sister is going through a divorce on the other side of the country

[–] [email protected] 63 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Someone tell Bones that you can lie on security questions

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Aye, that's valid, it's just a different theory at that point

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, you're right. It's a pet theory for a reason, I keep it inside the house, but sometimes I let it look out the window, so people can say "that's a nice theory". Maybe someone would sing a song or write a story about it.

It's a dream, but it's no more a dream than any other economic theory

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/37346628

This theory starts off with Capitalism as a base with strong government regulations, basically unlimited over-reach and no nominal taxation up front. In terms of politics, perfect democracy or lottocracy to taste.

Companies are allowed to amass wealth as usual, with freedom to innovate.

The kicker: a universal government competitor (UGC) for every novel company. Instead of acquiring nominal monetary taxation, the government takes half of all of the company's physical labor and resources, additionally sharing any patent rights the company owns.

The universal government competitor operates entirely on the back of the existing company, until that company fails, then it will be funded through its own profits, until it fails. Any additional profit gained is used to fund public services and government duties. The UGC is free to set whatever prices it deems appropriate without risk of getting undercut.

I think a key benefit is "no taxes": normal citizens will only pay taxes in terms of paying for products from the UGC while directly receiving a good or service for it in return. Companies will also always be forced to innovate and keep products safe. It will make billionaires difficult to create.

This, like any other economic theory would be difficult to implement. However, I think it might be simple enough that most people could understand it, and attractive as a challenge for thirsty innovators that the masses might find it palatable.

but idk, i just thought it up in the bath

 

This theory starts off with Capitalism as a base with strong government regulations, basically unlimited over-reach and no nominal taxation up front. In terms of politics, perfect democracy or lottocracy to taste.

Companies are allowed to amass wealth as usual, with freedom to innovate.

The kicker: a universal government competitor (UGC) for every novel company. Instead of acquiring nominal monetary taxation, the government takes half of all of the company's physical labor and resources, additionally sharing any patent rights the company owns.

The universal government competitor operates entirely on the back of the existing company, until that company fails, then it will be funded through its own profits, until it fails. Any additional profit gained is used to fund public services and government duties. The UGC is free to set whatever prices it deems appropriate without risk of getting undercut.

I think a key benefit is "no taxes": normal citizens will only pay taxes in terms of paying for products from the UGC while directly receiving a good or service for it in return. Companies will also always be forced to innovate and keep products safe. It will make billionaires difficult to create.

This, like any other economic theory would be difficult to implement. However, I think it might be simple enough that most people could understand it, and attractive as a challenge for thirsty innovators that the masses might find it palatable.

but idk, i just thought it up in the bath

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Fair, never heard that one, but I can agree with not making new ones

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is the first time I'm hearing plow cemeteries, and I'm not sure I'm on board with that. People usually spend time there to deal with grief and losing a little bit more of a dead loved one would be incredibly painful for a lot of folks

Fuck golf courses though

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, I try to every day

Some days are harder than others, I ain't perfect, I've caused probably as much harm as good, but I try my best

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Also, for anyone reading through this thinking, "I shouldn't give them money because drugs"

I use drugs to cope with chronic pain so I can get through a workday

I'm skilled labor and make a decent salary

The only things separating me from a homeless person were some "fortunate" family deaths providing enough inheritance to put me through college at a good time and some lucky networking

We should all be more humble and less judgemental of eachother's choices

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've quite a few friends I've personally pulled out of homelessness, so I've seen how hard it is firsthand, I hope things are better for you

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

I subscribe to a policy of cautious altruism, like a lot of folks already said. I need to keep myself and my family safe so probably not allow in the house, but I'd give food water, the hose, soap, shampoo, clean towel, and a change of clothes if I can. Maybe even some cash if I have it around to spare.

If I have a shed or garage I'd allow them to use it to change clothes privately and offer to wash their clothes if safe. They may have residue of drugs like meth on their clothes that I'm unable handle.

I've also got a decent amount of privilege to share.

Be kind, be safe

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This political compass meme is wrong

Auth right would never

view more: next ›