Looking at this graph, this may just be a case of the spike during COVID subsiding.

Sooner or later the us regime is going to collapse. It’s fundamental tally unsustainable and just a good few crises away from imploding. And the best part is, you’re looking right at the face of pretty much every kind of crisis imaginable. We’ve got climate crises, disastrous weather events, fascist coups, exploding inequality, de-dollarisation, the defeat of american imperialism in west and east Asia, mass immigration and so on.

So the violent overthrow of the American government is actually more realistic than trying to improve the Democrat party from the inside. Certainly the former will happen way before the latter.

Trump openly

This is the real problem that libs have with trump. He represents and fulfills all of their ideals, but without the pompadour.

DONALDFUCKINGTRUP

The incompetent fascist is more scary to you than the competent one? Why?

Both the ussr and dprk control all/most firms in the economy. If they think that there is too much inequality in the existing wage structure, they can easily change it. As an example, the Chinese government implemented a salary limit on super high income earners in the state owned finance sector.

Americans can make an industrial complex out of anything except actual industrial production.

Why shouldn’t it be? There are other ways to control inequality for a socialist state (since they control wages). All taxes (and rent, interest, profit) in a country are ultimately paid out on nation’s labor. Taxing wages directly is the most sensible way of levying taxes as it doesn’t have the risk of distorting the economy in unexpected/unwanted ways, and you can use progressive income taxes to readjust inequality.

Making a reserve does seem like a more sensible approach than a unified currency, but there is still the question of who issues the currency and with what rates. It seems somewhat unnecessary (given my admittedly amateur knowledge) to create a new currency.

Setting the rates too high on the currency will stifle investment, while setting the rates too low will make using the currency unappealing. The problem is that the “ideal” rate differs depending on the profit rates in each country (which diverge significantly from each other).

trade with one partner does not create an obligation to you since they do not gain a reserve of your own nation’s currency but of a currency acceptable to all members.

I mean, the obligation still exists. The obligation is just to BRICS as a whole instead of one country. I guess that might be a nice benefit.

super communism going full tilt working as intended and never collapsing governments amirite?

Wdym never collapsing governments? We are big fans of collapsing governments. That is like, half the definition of being a communist.

Which one are you talking about?

Nah, the soviet union was very durable, much more so than brics likely ever will be. Few other countries ever faced as much external pressure and wars as the ussr did, and even then, it only fell apart because of long term issues stemming from krushchev’s secret speech and the sino-soviet split.

The graphic design of the bill is wack (complete lack of symmetry with the landmarks. Some start at the inner circle which looks nice, some start at the outer circle, like the taj mahal, which looks out of place as a result).

But a unified brics currency is just a bad idea and replicates the problem of the euro and the usd. You should only use a united currency for an economy under a common economic plan.

The level of inflation and interest rates on a currency that are good for a currency depends significantly upon the country. Basically, if N countries combine their currency, you go from 2N levers (interest rate and reserve requirements for each country) to just 2 levers (1 rate and 1 reserve ration for all countries). Capitalist economies already have trouble moderating economic activity, reducing the available controls is not ideal. This is pretty much the problem the EU faces.

A much better idea would be a unified brics payment system, with 0 foreign exchange fees and real time conversion. This would give you the benefits of a unified currency (each cross border payments) while still allowing countries to diverge on monetary policy.

Kissing my homes good night

Reminder that America’s initial love for immigration came from the need to populate the empire with loyal white soldiers who could hold it against blacks and the indigenous, the same way Israel loves immigration (only if it is white jews).

My logic (I don’t live in the us but for the sake of argument, let’s pretend I do) is that if a politician can commit a livestreamed genocide, and they win the election, it signals to politicians that there is no line they can cross that will make their campaign unviable.

It would be more ideal if the Democrats could have been punished for their war mongering years ago, but you never punish your representatives for crossing even the most egregious possible line, then you truly don’t have any power over them and have fundamentally given up.

If tommorow, even 10% of the dems indicated in polls that they would not vote for kamala because of gaza, it would force the DNC to take a stronger stance on the issue because the race is too tight. If this had happened many months ago, the Democrats could have been forced in giving concessions. But the Democrat voter base has made sure that the demmocrat party has no need to give concessions. They have used themselves as meat waves to ensure that the genocide can continue smoothly.

Some academics became liberals after having flirted with Marxism. This is relevant why exactly? I mean, I can cite many great minds who remained Marxists and even advanced the theory. Ever heard of Paul Cockshott? Alan Contrell? David Zachariah? Emanuel Farjoun?

These guys (and some others) actually worked on Marxist economic theory and modernized it. They lived through the collapse of the USSR and remained steadfast in their beliefs. And I haven’t talked about countless other minds in anthropology, history, contemporary social studies and philosophy who have used dialectical materialism as a foundation to achieve great results.

And so I want to emphasize something.

every single one of them gave up and became an egalitarian.

Is blatantly and literally false.

I can perform a completely independent experiments in my house.

And I can scream into the abyss, it’s just as relevant. The absolute majority of actually useful and relevant science is performed socially for social purposes.

I make a hypothesis that my stove can boil 1L of water in 10 minutes.

You aren’t even supposed to do a scientific experiment in the way you have just described. Or rather, there is neither a universally agreed upon scientific method, nor would your described experiment hold up to any standards.

An actual scientific experiment into water boiling would involve at the minimum

1. A model predicting the speed of boiling based on relevant variables
2. A collection of many data, and preferably corroborated by independent sources
3. Statistical analysis of the data (there are many methods to choose from) to gauge confidence in the model.
4. Publishing or proofreading of the results.

However, at each of these steps, you have a choice of how to approach the problem. And this depends on what you are trying to do, and what the best standards in the industry are. The process has also changed over time.

And this reveals the problem of many people’s metaphysical approach to science. They treat it as if it were a platonic ideal, or floating constant in the human minds pace. In reality, “science” is an industry with its ever-changing standards, culture, interaction with the rest of society, and a million other complexities.

The broader field of academia and getting scientific papers published is more of a governance thing than science.

You cannot separate the 2. There is no pure science out there which can be done without “governance”.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Just facts

From where? Your 3 AM hallucinations?

don’t shoot the messenger

I think I will