What is an absurdity that has been normalized by society?

Intuit is the sole reason our taxes are so obtuse. They lobby for it to be this way.

In all but the most niche cases, they do in fact know that you had a kid. That being said, most things they have a pretty good idea about (or could) and they could easily adopt the system that they do in a lot of other countries where the government sends to a tax form all filled out that says, “we think you owe this much.” Then you just provide the exemptions you listed.
This would save a considerable amount of time when I file my taxes by just being able to double check they got cost basis correct on stocks sold and applied appropriate credits for mortgage interest and what not.

HAHAHA yah, they don’t know those things about you…..sure……

So offer it for simple cases. If you don't like the way it's done, you can always go and do the simple process you're describing

Yes they do. See, scandinavian countries.

That element of it — when the restaurant is doing well, the windfall is shared with the waitstaff — could be preserved by simply giving the staff a percentage of the price of each meal they work on. Structure it as a bonus, the way salaried professionals can receive a bonus when the company is doing well.

It may be worth noting that worker-owned restaurants, like Cheese Board Pizza here in Berkeley, typically do not solicit tips. (Well, except for the live musicians, who are not worker-owners.) If tipping was really all that great for the workers, then places where the workers literally control company policy would encourage it.

Just another way to divide. Typically FOH staff get all or most of the share, while cooks get screwed, in my experience.

In some of those countries, it's not really a choice. Like, WhatsApp is the only way of contacting a company's customer care (via chat bots that run on it), colleges and universities may have study groups on it and teachers may hand out notes etc in those groups, also apparently it's also the only way to contact even some government agencies.

So many people use it, that the barrier to change to another application is high. They would need to fuck up on very large scale.

It's an issue of userbase.

WhatsApp can and will get away with a lot before it drives users to a mass exodus, when messaging should have just been an open protocol from the start.

I was there. It was fine. You didn't need phones to be able to function in a society. Phones were something like an optional convenience that you had only at fixed places, like your home or office. If you were out and about, you typically didn't have access to a phone, unless you were in the vicinity of a payphone, so you weren't expected to be available on phone. Whereas in the countries where Meta has monopoly over, everyone expects you to be on WhatsApp, and you don't really get a choice in the matter.

That's just the efficiency of the free market.

Yeah, it would be more correct to say "work for others to live" is absurd.

People always had to do some work to survive, but in a world were all the land is owned, if you are one of the majority which is born landless you generaly can't work for yourself (even to open your own business you need starting money) just enough to live by with (say, build your own house and do subsistence farming), so unless mommy and daddy have lots of dosh you're going to have to work for others within the constraints of the existing system (or become a criminal, in which case the system will punish you) and unlike when just working to provide to yourself, working in this system means competing with everybody else - and were, again, how much support mommy and daddy can give you makes a massive difference - to such a level that you have to run just to stand still.

Compared to plain old subsistence farming the whole way work is done in the current system is absurd, mainly because it has to produce way more than what is actually needed to provide for all, since a tiny slice of the population are massive money hoarders leeching out of the rest so tons of extra wealth has to be created just for them.

Whatever the optimal system is for "the greatest good for the greatest number" (which would be more than just everybody doing subsistence farming), mathematically it's clear it can't be one were some people have control over billions of times more resources than others.

I use a car about 4 times a month. On those 4 occasions I need that car. When buying my house I considered some extra criteria like proximity to a bus stop, train station and a good cycleable connection to daily goods stores. Even 10 years ago that caused my house being 15 to 30% more expensive as houses in different areas.

I am lucky to be able to afford such a thing but now I don't own a car for about 4 years and the cost of owning and maintaining a car seems to be far more expensive than the extra I had to invest in my house. Cars have become a lot more expensive while inflation made it easier to do the downpayments on my house.

Well good luck making them change that In the meantime, I'm using my car so it doesn't take 2 hours to walk to the grocery store and only bring back what I can carry.

A lot of us inside the US are wondering the same thing still

That's fun to say but not really a reflection of reality, factories full of machine operators don't exist like they used to - my parents talk about what would be like when the local factory day ended and everyone would flood the streets, fill the bars and everyone would be in their overalls... They actually still make the same product in a slightly different location, only about fifty people work there but they produce far more units.

It's the same in every industry, and all the extra profits are going into the pockets of the owners who live increasingly luxurious lifestyles. If the huge efficiency gains we've seen in recent decades were used to benefit society then we'd be living far better lives, but they're being used to buy absurdly over priced art to hang in super yachts and show off to their rich buddies.

people who think that our brains were designed.

It was, just by forces that lack conscious motivation.

In a way it designed itself over time. I am a collection of accidentally acquired traits that happened to survive more often in the world that used to be. Mercifully it appears that I am somewhat adept at living in this world, but damn does it feel like I am a fish out of water being in this world.

Why?

We've established a profit motive to increase your medical costs and then avoid covering them.

Eh, "your body, your choice" still holds. The rest of us just also get to use our bodily autonomy to say "fine, but stay away from society". Go live in the wilderness and avoid the 5Gs or whatever as you die of a stubbed toe because of your choices.

when anything is that important, the medicine must be opensourced ¹.

if so, and it's handled correctly, you can still have body autonomy in those situations due to the resulting freedoms - much akin in nature to the software foss freedoms we all cherish. and in that sense, would not be a limit of “Your body, your choice". while still maintaining, if not increasing, the public protection to such threats.

it was really refreshing to see some discussion in public health policy from some very smart and relevant people for opensourcing those medications. unsurprisingly it was swiftly shot down, but it was nice to at least see it taking place - which is a small positive change.

¹ naturally we decouple authentication and traceability from commercial interests. and ofc it does not mean noone gets paid

It should still be a personal choice. Someone else isn't really putting you at any more risk if you've been vaccinated as it doesn't stop you carrying a virus just aliveates the symptoms. It just means they're more likely to be laid up for a week where as you shrug it off.

There is no limit. Even in those cases they could be treated without vaccination. And the unvaccinated could be banned from spaces where they would be a danger. I mean come on, you're not even liberal? This is a super basic liberal principle baked into our society snd you just... disagree with it.

It's almost enough money to live forever.

It’s okay buddy.

Can confirm. Endless rain this summer in the UK. No grass watering required (not that it is ever required...). Didn't stop my neighbour watering on the few sunny weeks we've had...

Trust me, it isn't always raining in the Netherlands.

We too have had summer seasons where the ground water is so low, there are restrictions on watering your lawn.

A lot of communities are seeing people install fake grass. Also, rock gardens or gravel lawns are an option. If you want green and natural, clover is a good ground cover that doesn't grow too tall.

Moss yards are pretty cool

From what I recall, the places that do this usually do it in the form of days of income. I'm not sure how they determine that if someone's money comes from investments, etc.

True. So I wonder how is it that some European countries that do this got around that obstacle. I guess that's what happens when you have an equitable society in place?

Raising interest rates to fight inflation works by reducing demand. Jobs get lost so people have less money. So they spend less, so prices drop to be more competitive.

Only poorer people obviously. Rich people are less affected, but still pay more in interest. The increased number of unemployed people means competition for jobs is higher so workers are cheaper to pay, increasing profits again.

High inflation is bad for everyone, but particularly so for the poorer, too. However, measures to fight it should be spread across society. Instead blunt tools like interest rate rises disproportionately affect the poor. They should be combined with higher taxes on business and high earners and high net worth individuals. Worldwide we only really do the first. I wonder who decides?

Mainly just my absolute shock at the openness of saying "We really need to see a weaker labor market." Seriously??? That is where we are at now. The complete and transparent assault on the worker by people I personally fund. Outrageous! At least lie to me about your motives like I might have a modicum of power over you. Now you just tell me to eat shit and die right to my face.

It is in some parts of the world. Lots of people hate those classes.

The basic unit of production, where capital meets labour to produce goods and services, is the capitalist firm. And every profit-maximising firm is owned by a private capital.

Capitalists extract profits from firms. They can spend only a fraction of their profits on luxury consumption. Because if the rich spent all their profit on luxuries their capital will rapidly diminish and expire, compared to competing capitals who invest their profit in further profitable activities. Profit income must be reinvested in order to make more profit. This is the prime directive for anyone who possesses a capital sum of money.

Owners of capital — that is capitalists — can’t put all their eggs in one basket. That’s too risky because firms can go under, or assets that store value might depreciate. So capitalists spread their risk by owning a portfolio of investments with different risk profiles.

A typical portfolio will consist of cash held in different sovereign currencies, government, municipal and corporate bonds, shares in different companies, from risky start-ups to blue chips, and all kinds of income-producing assets, such as land and housing. Basically anything that might yield a higher than average return.

Each individual capital must aim to maximise the return over its portfolio. If it fails it will diminish in size relative to other capitals, and eventually cease being a capital at all.

And it’s right here that we again find the causal structure of a feedback control system. An individual capital — when we consider it as a social practice mediated by a privately owned large sum of money — also has its own goal state, sensory inputs, decision making, and ability to act upon the world in which it is embedded.

Let’s take each of these in turn. (i) The goal of an individual capital is to maximise the average return from every dollar (or pound) invested. (ii) The “sensory inputs” are the different profit-rates earned across the portfolio. (iii) The capitalist, or the financial experts they employ, compare the different profit-rates, and (iv) the feedback loop is closed by actions that withdraw capital from poorly performing investments, and inject capital into high performing investments.

This control loop manifests as an insatiable and ceaseless search for high returns.

Capital doesn’t care how its money is actually used in production. It entirely abstracts from all concrete activities. The only thing it can sense, compare and use is abstract value.

So the commanding heights of the global economy consists of an enormous ensemble of individual capitals, each manically scrambling for profit, reacting to the signals of differential returns received from its tendrils that extend to every productive activity under its rule, continually injecting and withdrawing capital to and from different industrial sectors and geographical regions. The entirety of the world’s material resources, including the working time of billions of people, are repeatedly marshalled and re-marshalled away from low and towards high-profit activities. In the space of months, entire industrial sectors may be raised up, relocated, or thrown down.

Capitalists are possessed, mere machine components of capital.

What about the individual people who participate in this social practice? Surely their individual consciousness, their ideas, and their behaviour matter, and make a difference?

To a certain extent they do of course. But individuals come and go, but capitals live much longer than any individual human. The people controlled by the capital — that is the workers that supply labour to firms, and capitalists that exploit them and extract profits — are mere replaceable components in the control loop, mechanically performing prescribed functional roles.

For example, Marx writes in Capital, that:

“to classical economy, the proletarian is but a machine for the production of surplus-value; on the other hand, the capitalist is in its eyes only a machine for the conversion of this surplus-value into additional capital.”

We often say that a capitalist possesses capital. But it is more accurate to say that capital possesses them. Capitalists are the human face of an inhuman intelligence with its own logic and its own goals.

“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality” (Communist Manifesto).

Bigger capitals enjoy the advantage of larger portfolios, which spreads risk. In consequence, capital tends to concentrate in a few hands. So we find a large number of small capitals, and a very small number of astronomically large capitals, which earn profits that dwarf the GDP of many nation states. The scale and power of some capitals is truly titanic.

And these titans are so much in control, that they are out of control. Again, a quote from the Communist Manifesto:

“Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.”

Every day millions of workers, around the globe, have no choice but to sacrifice their time, and their vitality, to produce new profit for the autonomous controllers. No matter how hard, long or efficiently we work, the imperative to work remains.

Why? Because every labour-saving technical innovation takes the form of profit, which is then captured by individual capitals, and immediately re-injected into the material world to animate new activities for further profit. This is why, despite huge advances in automation, the working day remains as long as ever.

Take another example: the logic of capital demands maximum profit extraction from firms, and that means minimising wages. Those possessed by capital live an exalted existence. But the world’s dispossessed must feed, clothe and maintain a home with an average income of about 7 pounds a day.

Another example: it’s better to be exploited than not exploited. We are subject to the whims of the business cycle and periodic crises of accumulation. Recessions regularly throw large numbers of people out of work, through no fault of their own. Suddenly bills can’t be paid. Families are thrown onto the street, as happened in the US during the 2008 mortgage crisis, and is happening again now.

Why? Because individual capitals are almost blind. They see only differential returns across their portfolios. And returns may be good even if unemployment is high, or human misery spills onto the streets. Capital does not care.

Another example: capital deals in abstract value, and things that are not owned, which aren’t bought and sold, therefore have no value to it at all. So the material wealth of nature — the land, the oceans, and the atmosphere — is relentlessly plundered without any regard for the consequences.

Capital destroys us, and the environment. The endless production and profit-making cannot stop, because each individual capital must compete to survive. Marx summarised the prime directive of capital as:

“Accumulate, accumulate! … reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus-value … into capital! Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie”.

So all the autonomous control loops have the single-minded goal of extracting profit from the world’s activities. If an activity fails to satisfy this goal, then the controller withdraws its capital, and the activity stops.

So at the apex of the economy we have a competing collection of identical controllers — with an atavistic, low level of demonic intelligence — which inject and withdraw a social substance that appears to possess the magical power of animation, of bringing things alive, of creation; but also appears to possess the power of annihilation, of suffocation, of bringing things to an end, of destruction.

We are definitely not in control. And something else definitely is in control.

So what are we really talking about now?

We’re saying that a new kind of supra-individual control system emerged, quite spontaneously, from our own social intercourse, and then — in a very real sense — has taken on a life of its own, turned around, and started controlling us.

Capital in a scientific, not a metaphorical sense, is a control system. And it is capital, as a control system, that ultimately creates and maintains the abstraction we call exchange-value. Capital is the abstractor.

more here: https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2020/09/03/marx-on-capital-as-a-real-god-2/

Very simply: how can it be fair that someone who contributes nothing to the process profits from my labour?

I am the skilled craftsperson who produces furniture. And yet someone takes from me the profit of my work. Beyond the cost of materials, workshop, arranging buyers etc.

After all those costs are accounted for there is still someone else who captures most of the profit instead of me. How is that not absurd?

The fact that we live in a land of plenty but people die due to malnutrition or lack of access to healthcare because it's not profitable is pretty damning.

Capitalism is like a rabid dog. It has its uses, but you don't just let it roam freely, you keep it on a tight leash.

Your comment is textbook sealioning.

if someone makes a one word comment, they're unlikely to want to write you a research paper justifying it. but i'll give it a li'l go.

the whole core concept of capitalism is that some few people 'own' the ovens, and they get to tell other people to bake cookies, and even though these cookie-bakers bake all of the cookies, the oven-owners get to keep most of them, and the cookie bakers only get a small portion. also there aren't any ovens that aren't 'owned' by an oven-owner, so if you wanna eat cookies, you have to give most of the cookies you bake to an oven-owner. and this model is extended to everything.

i don't know that this allegory will mean anything to you, and maybe you think of something different when you hear 'capitalism' (maybe you think of 'markets', or 'money', or, i don't know, just seeing benefits from ones own hard work or something), but this is basically the usual meaning of capitalism, and probably what most people who oppose it, myself included, are talking about. there are a lot of other criticisms, of course, but that core scammy unfairness of it, i think, is most absurd.

People can get sick from secondhand smoke. Yes, it's true that alcoholics can affect people around them, it's not as obvious as blowing smelly smoke in someone's face.