<This comment requires a Lemmy premium account to view>

I hardly can see how the theory of value is highly flawed.

How is it possible to have gains in value that requires zero labor without having something shady behind it?

I’m not trying to introduce a novel concept.

I’m trying to bring up to the forefront the old concept surplus value from Karl Marx.

money isn’t just a replacement for battered goods, but also a way to precify the value of work.

Work is the real value that runs through the world.

Now, when we talk about taxing the rich, we are talking about the State getting back the value of our work (money) that the rich stole from us by underpaying our jobs.

And for those who says “The rich will move their riches to a country that pays less taxes”, I must remind you again that these riches can only be generated through work.

Tax the rich means taxing their companies and stores as well

It means not letting them have half a trillion of a surplus value that they stole from all of us (because one way or another, we are “working” for them even if by something as stupid as writing a comment on a social media).

And if, supposedly, the company desires to shutdown their factories here, the State must simply buy it and reopen the factories (maybe under another company that, but still with the state as the main “shareholder”).

What makes the factories produce goods is not a rich man with billions of dollars.

What make the goods exist is the working from man and woman in these factories.

And doing so, the company that left will also leave the internal market share where they were profiting over us, but yet, the market share will still exist and be filled by those from within the state-company.

to piss both audiences here:

Emacs in graphical mode

What about Putin and Trump working together the rhetoric of nuclear deterrence?

IIRC, Russia+USA = 90% of all nuclear weapons in the world.

A big whammy hammer if they (hypothetically) fight together.

how much money would be worth if every person on earth ceased to exist?

What would happen with the economy in this scenario?

Quick question:

how much money would be worth if every person on earth ceased to exist?

Money has no value by itself.

If all humans died today (thanos snap with 100%), the paper-money would still exist, but would you (your ghost, I mean) say that a 100 dollars still holds value in an earth devoid of humans?

I will argue for no. Without humans, money has no value.

Money is the value being priced on labor-hours that was stolen by someone.

When an ultra rich move their assets outside, they are moving the stolen hours.

But even if he didn’t move those stolen hours outside, they would still be stolen hours.

Keeping the ultra-rich in our country is enabling the thief that keeps stealing us.

The true value is made by those who work the fields, academy, construction and all other sectors that keep society working.

The people living on a country and the sites/places/plot of lands can’t be moved overseas.

The rich must choose between getting his money out of high taxes and keeping his access to a country’s internal market if he decides to remove all of his investing (including machinery/real state investment) from a given country.

Is 16 GB still in the market? I mostly find 32 or 64 GB for usb-stick.

8GB is pretty much dead nowadays (and so is CD/DVD)

(Honorable mention: RIP Floppy Disk )

Who the Fuck Casted ICE STORM???

http://www.gamecabinet.com/rules/WavingHands.html

WHAT DID YOU SAY???

LUIGIDATE MUSK??

Also, if one really have the need of passing paper on the butt, then do like this guy and have your own organic green self-grown toilet paper: https://www.robingreenfield.org/growyourowntoiletpaper/

Remember that writing is also for processing (emotionally) the shit that is going on.

I know it is your work and you do with it what you want.

Even then I want to suggest just to write your voice against what is happening today in whatever way you want.

It may be in the style you imagined or you may just shelve this particular style for a while.

But writers are always needed to shout the voice of those who “can’t do so by themselves”

This is the kind of “I want my worldview reassured so I will ignore the context” behaviour that I see a lot on the right. The more I am on Lemmy, the more I see this same aporach.

Warning for everyone else: This “both sides” thing is a typical tactic used by alt-right (and even fascists)to muddy the water, making us questioning if we should punch up or down.

Yes, there are some cases where “both sides” talk may make sense.

But what determines if it makes sense or not is the following question:

“Is the criticism against punching up or is it a criticism against punching down?”

“Punching up” means punching the privileged elites (example: talking bad of shareholders for making our lives worse)

Punching down is what this comment is doing, which is making excuses for harmful behavior against a minority (Remember that human’s right are a right for any and every person)

So, remember, just like with comedy, NEVER punch down (never make the oppressed lives worser)

Do Punch Up! (Make the oppressors lose their grip)

Toque de Merda in portuguese (Touch of Mierda)

I hope it isn’t like the similarly named subreddit where the moderator was against calling Elon’s salute for what it was.

I’ll be honest and a bit jaded, These “uplifting” comunities do feel a bit like the “this is fine” meme (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-fine)

Not that I am against uplifting news. I’m just cautious because I’ve seen a fair share of nazi dogwhistle associated with this idea.

Be careful that anti-theism may e as harmful as any fundamentalist religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3D4tMVaO7k

What I think is not that we should “abolish” religion (granted that I know you did not propose that. I’m just extrapolating from “religion is a plague”)

I think we should move to exploring different religions without holding any of them as superior to the other, or at least not judging before reading a it more on your own accord and desire.

Someone pointed about issues on buddhism, which are true issues.

But eastern religions take from buddhism, taoism and confucionism religions and it is not uncommon to take a few different takes from each one of these as one goes in their own studies.

Same way, I think the rise of pagan religions would be useful to have the idea of being exposed to different concepts of religious ideas

Or similarly, different philosophical ideas, like reading from plato, but also from hume, but also from descartes, but also from…

As long as one doesn’t stay stagnant on the same philosophical pool, there is no harm browsing (with sufficient care) other ideas.

An important addition is that saying “we are animals” isn’t supposed to cut what we judge to be morally right or wrong.

If anything, “We are animals” must be used to know that other animals may probably have similar introspection as us and we are unaware, thinking o ourselves as special kind of creature when it is far from being true.

If, let’s say hypothetically, a cow do have not only feelings but also moral thought, thinking of a sacred "cow god/goddess) and having moral argument with fellow cows, then it just makes butchering them even more of a “crime” that it is already.

First and foremost: You are correct.

Now allow me to try to be funny: Well… Apartments are just pretty square-ish caves.

(Note that I said “try to be funny”)

At this point, I think we should invite back hexbear tankies to roll over the conservatives and “centrist” in .world

I’m half joking, but there may be some truth in that.