When taxes are payed, the treasury can “return” the money, wiping the spending from circulation

That means that the money is not destroyed. Equating destruction of money with taking money from circulation and putting it into what is effectively a government’s savings is incredibly silly and non-informative.

They don’t. You can’t tag a particular dollar and follow it as it leaves a taxpayer’s account, goes into a government account, gets allocated to a particular item of the budget, and then gets spent out again into the economy

You actually can. However, that’s actually not relevant, as you seem to misunderstand what the other person is saying.
Also, if you were correct, it wouldn’t be possible to say that money is destroyed in the first place, making What_Religion_R_They correct.

When a dollar is taxed, it basically goes into a furnace and disappears

It doesn’t. It gets reallocated. The fact that we supposedly can’t trace it (marking physical currency and following electronic transactions is a thing) doesn’t change that fact. The supply of money in the circulation+savings+treasury does not magically decrease.

IT

They are going to vote so hard! You will all see! /s

8

Being ahead of schedule by basically a week and a half at work.

Successfully continuing my studies at home.

Every person who understands how loans work should understand why working-class people should stay the f away from them as much as possible. They are only good for capitalists - the people who can use money to increase their personal incomes.

Microloans are loans designed to target working-class people. Even worse - specifically some of the poorest and most vulnerable working-class people. They are a crime against humanity.

When you pay your taxes, they don’t go into funding government programs. Your money gets destroyed in the Treasury.

There is no actual destruction of money being done this way, unless the relevant units are too damaged. The taxed money is either put into the treasury or it is returned into circulation through a budget.
On that note, it doesn’t matter where money came from with regards to a budget, so when people say that some part of a budget if funded by some specific money (in the short term, at least), they are being silly.

I’d also say that the points about money that individual people have being ‘tax credit’ are not informative.

However, yes, the obsession with calling money ‘taxpayer money’ is rather silly, and it should be recognised that money is something issued by a government in order to reliably distribute various goods/services in a society. A state could, indeed, decide to maintain its military in many different ways, including with no budget, depending on how it sets up its economy. (However, it should be noted that it does depend on how the economy is set up. Capitalist states generally need to pay wages/salaries to its military, as well as buy equipment and/or resources to make equipment with for the military, which necessitates usage of money, and simply issuing more money without an increase in productive capacity would mean a reduction in the ability of money to guarantee one goods and services.)

I do have to say that you did not make the relevant points clear for other people. It isn’t going to be clear to people what sort of a shift in understanding you are talking about there in the end.

Never trust liberals.

Now actually includes Lula!

They always get it all wrong. There are normal people, and then there are cis people.

Oust the liberals from academia

How would you determine who is a liberal and who is not? Also, you are risking ousting too many liberals there (consider the fact that people who already live well and want even more - like highly educated scientists, engineers, or famous performance artists - seem to be rather likely to be liberals) in the sense that ousting them would leave you with too little an educational and research, outputs.

and also prevent the dumbass spiral towards liberalization caused by Khrushchev’s bloc’s reforms

How? What actions would you take?

China was unique in that it had a massive well-educated population and at least some infrastructure ready to go

I hadn’t considered that part.

Gorbachev was a teenager in 1950

I fail to see how that makes him harder to deal with.

You’d be better off making sure he got a better political education than he did

Firstly, what makes you think that the issue was education and not him becoming a lib in spite of it?
Secondly, if it was, indeed, education that was at fault, what would you change, then?

though really his problem was just that he was a likable, competent bureaucrat who was also a completely uninspired dumbass when it came to leadership

He was quite literally a liberal self-admittedly dedicated to destroying the USSR by the time he got the position.

so he let his policy get written by anticommunist extremists

He was an anti-communist PoS.

and without China opening up as a base of labor and a market for capital from the US the US hits a hard wall in the 1970s with no solution to maintaining capitalist growth

I wouldn’t be so sure, considering that there was the whole rest of the colonial world to exploit. It would just be more dispersed, I’d wager.

And wasn’t the bloated conventional military one of the primary reasons for the economic stagnation of the 70s?

From what I gather, the major factors for that were the unwillingness of the post-Stalin leadership to slow down industries in the short term in order to modernise equipment, as well as Kosygin and Liberman’s reforms (which also contributed to the lack of modernisation of industrial equipment).

Unironically me.

I have heard of Yeltsin, and if I were to be transported into the body of Stalin in the 50s, I would act on that knowledge.

I’m not saying ‘kill them’. I think that banishing them from the party forever would be enough.

Make sure that Khruschyov, Gorbachyov, Yeltsin, Kosygin, and Liberman have nothing to do with the politics and the economy of the USSR.
Resume the project of transitioning to a 6-hour working day.

Note, I am a degreed developer. The only thing that you can’t replicate without a university is working with a supercomputer. Everything else can be studied and done on one’s own and/or with the help of forums (such as Hexbear itself) and developer groups of open-source projects that you can (and should, if you pursue this path) join.

Also, only a few universities even have supercomputers to begin with.

IDK how things are in your area in this regard, but what you need to get a software development job can be made/achieved without a degree.

Namely, you need to make a portfolio of projects on GitHub or analogous platform. Those projects should demonstrate your ability to work with relevant technologies and understanding of some of the relevant concepts.

A way to look up relevant technologies and skills is to go to a job-searching website and read the requirements of relevant jobs.

Never understood the simulacra stuff. What are these the stages of? Why so incredibly cryptic with the description of the ‘stages’? How are ‘stages’ 2-4 different?