The reason the USSA runs better than the USSR is that the american soviets are less brutal and more sophisticated than the russian. Have nonzero ability to appreciate the future beyond the immediate. That's it. E.g. a congressional committee is exactly a soviet. It's merely that americans aren't gauche enough to call it a soviet, like some uneducated peasant. You have never heard of any of the important soviets, nor do you know the names of anyone on them. They are very, very unelected. By design.
In america you're allowed a thin veneer of Capital-adjacent behaviour, provided the soviets are too busy to stop you. For example, the soviets have very little control over small businesses. However, someone told DC that crude regulations disproportionately harm small businesses, and therefore they doubled down. For example covid lockdown relief. Lobbyists - the soviet funding bodies - ensure the regs don't conflict too much with the large businesses. They're owned by the government after all, what's the point of shooting your own foot off? Regulatory "capture" is in fact the large businesses being captured by the State. Small businesses clash too much to have a unified lobby cooperative - which is how they remain, in turn, superficially free.
Regardless, if you do anything in america, it's either with soviet permission, with soviet inattention, or you end up in jail. As all appreciable businesses are government-owned, annoying a soviet will result in getting fired and blacklisted. Alternatively they merely repossess "your" children or wife. The latter is the government's woman, it's merely lending her to you, on account of not currently using her body.
Conveniently the soviets are always very busy trying to prevent the other soviets from eating their lunch. In poolitics, it is always backwards day, so [united] means [divided]. DSSA, it's not divided at the state level, and is a world Empire, not restricted to america. [Checks and balances] means even the government isn't allowed to legitimately own things; other soviets are permitted to take stuff away if they can finagle a way or means. Usurper Regime. With all this background noise citizen-slaves can get away with a lot provided they don't brazenly cause a soviet to lose face, and even more if they don't try to muscle in on State monopolies.
Don't try to start a pepsi competitor unless you've paid your full danegeld for the last ten years. And know exactly who to start paying jizya to, and how much. Meanwhile the Amish get away with mogging !!america!! in every way because they're poor. They can do whatever they want provided they're not obviously superior.
If !!capitalism!! means anything in the Empire, it's that paying off your local soviet isn't considered corruption in !!america!!. Instead it's the expected minimum. If you're rich enough you can in fact pay the correct soviets to let you do whatever you want. As it turns out [whatever you want] is 15-year-old whores rather than, for example, inventing the airplane, but never mind. Owning your own houseblimp is on the table, but too expensive even for the most voracious leeches. In soviet russia a billionaire's fortune would be redistributed - usually directly to stalin - but in !!america!! you can pay your soviet enough to let you keep some of the money. As long as you don't tell anyone who the soviet is, how much you paid them, in what way you paid them, etc etc.
Generational wealth is not real in !!america!! on account of these extraordinary payments. If the stock market could keep your sons and daughters comfortable you wouldn't be permitted to invest in the stock market. Anyone rich and not in a soviet must either quietly bleed money or work enough to pay the soviets to allow them to keep working to pay the soviets.
Large businesses, especially banks, are [bailed out] by the government because the costs were going to be eaten by the government either way, what with being wholly-owned government enterprises. Why bother raising new State-owned businesses - especially re-running all the nonsense about pretending they're private - when you can simply keep the old ones? Of course when I say the government eats the cost I mean they counterfeit the money and tax the base more.
The phrase [eating their lunch] is amusing but in fact every time one soviet eats another's lunch, nobody gets lunch. That lunch is simply gone forever, and america is permanently poorer. This will be a source of ever more vicious infighting as every soviet spoils a slice of pie before one of their competitors can take a bite, making the pie smaller and smaller until, like rome, washington loses 90% of its population. Goes full detroit, in other words.
In the mean time, voters are realizing voters get the shaft, and joining the soviets. The pie-bakers, as in rome, notice they're getting a bad gig and quit the bakery. The pie needed to feed everyone on the "to each according to their [[[need]]]" side grows larger and larger as the available pie erodes from both ends, from waste and supply shocks.
The only thing not too small to grasp that the government does not own are the univerities, because the ownership goes in the other direction. The universities own important parts of the government. Universities are run by soviets, which subordinate the soviets in mere Official capacities. The universities don't get taxed, they get paid taxes. This includes their VCs; venture Communists. If you get university investment, your investors have no taxes to pay, and you outcompete everyone who does have to pay taxes. Perhaps if taxes were some reasonable percentage...but instead they're normal Communist rates for everyone who doesn't own the tax office lock stock and barrel.
Using these tax-preferred university investors, america pretends to be Capitalist for the dumb monkeys who can't (and don't want to) add 2+2. These investors decide who wins and who loses in [the marketplace] with a minimum of open, heavy-handed sanctions. If you refuse to bend the knee they can always start and fund a competitor. Conveniently the schools and universities don't teach you do to math. What a coincidental and convenient coincidence.
They're told to pay huge bribes. For example, pharma companies don't violate FDA rules once a year by accident. "Whoopsie doodle we made a new endemic virus what a shame who could have seen this coming." Where do you think these billion-dollar fines end up? Any pharma company that doesn't find a way to launder money into a soviet's pocket will quickly find their business becoming illegal. As long as gates keeps kicking back a large portion of his blood-sucking into "foundations" and "political campaign contributions" the taxpayers will ensure he is never poor. Or in jail.
Until a competing soviet manages to eat his soviet's lunch, that is. Sorry epstein's body double. Should have backed the winning horse if you didn't want to be suicided.
If you learn the names of any of the important soviet members, kindly don't let me know because I don't want to be suicided either. I don't plan to shoot myself three times in the spine and then throw myself off a low bridge to drown, but you never know where life's gonna take you I guess. Unless someone speaks the wrong name over an insecure line.
10 comments:
Are hajnals really more hubristic than other races?
Is it difficult for a small business owner to just run on Cash and not pay any taxes nor be regulated in the USA?
dunno
Yes, primarily due to all the snitches. You need some ingroup solidarity, of which in !!america!! you find the exact opposite - solidarity with traitors. The more treacherous the more loyal. The way to do things is be ready to liquidate at any time. If a regulation matters you shutter up and start a new business. Every current lucrative business requires a State license. Repair license, sit-down-and-talk license, hairdresser license. UltraCommunism.
You can be a black market gang business but this means dealing with other criminals in the black market. If !!americans!! weren't such traitorous snitches it would be great, but none of them will willingly use unlicensed labour.
If we're talking about Pride, asians take the cake. They imagine gods as identical to themselves but slightly more powerful. Refuse to imagine anything transcendent, because it would mar their face.
Face is, after all, zero sum. Any the gods have is less to go around for mere mortals.
Kosuke fujishima imagines gods are computer programmers. But, like, real good at it. They can code in real time, amazing.
What kind of "some ingroup solidarity" is good vs bad? I ask because you have said in past posts that ingroup is just an excuse to make someone forgo profitable trades with outgroups in favour of ingroupers. But it does seem like having no ingroup solidarity results in being easily subjugated by both governments and folk with strong ingroup preference. People without a solidarity group to support them are easier to treat badly by their own leaders, and presumably also their unsolidary groups easier to leech off and corrupt?
If your ingroup actually cooperates, and [outgroup] is defined by those who aren't reliable or trustworthy, then it's fine. In anglos in particular, the ingroup doesn't cooperate. There are no benefits to membership. It merely defines acceptable targets. Usually in reverse; the target is defined to be acceptable and then some reason they are [outgroup] is concocted.
Of course if you cooperate, why bother defining ingroup and outgroup at all? My trading partners don't need their own flag. The entry fee for the bazaar is not ethnogenesis.
It seems to me that even if you cooperate with cooperators, differentiation between ingroup and not-ingroup could be useful to determine with whom is warranted solidarity, such as in the face of an attack on them, regardless if coming from someone who ingroup shouldn't have let in, via subterfuge, or openly from outgroups, of course as long as the ingroup reciprocates and removes freeloaders. That would make ingroup a subset of people you cooperate with, in a particular way. This looks like a good match for human ingroup instinct, such as in the small violent tribes of far past. Also Ingroup Solidarity could be useful to make a group of people who cooperate, be more spontaneously (without being directed top down by their leaders)cooperative in some ways, such as punishing misbehaviour, freeloading&treachery against group members on their own instead of having to be told, including when the immediate (excluding effects of defection becoming more common over rime) impact is on someone else entirely. Not doing that is likely to result in worse outcomes for everyone eventually. For example the governments snitches in small companies could be rooted out, but aren't, as you noticed in your earlier reply here.
But if you punish defection whose immediate effect is on somebody else, than that is precisely solidarity with him , and a group which does it for each other without their boss/leader/whomever is in charge making them do it is an ingroup. A reason why ingroup is likely necessary for this kind of cooperation is you dont want to punish harm toward people who won't do the same for you. This doesn't mean you cannot trade (e. g. buy goods&services) with non-ingroups, those can be just separate relationships with different rules.
I know that what I described isn't most peoples idea of ingroup, but I wanted to know how to use humans ingroup instinct productively. So do you still think defining ingroup is useless if you cooperate???
Sounds to me like an awkward, inefficient, janky, and ungrateful form of contracts. Rules already have to be posted on signs.
When someone is especially good at warding off acts of war, who pays them?
Entry hojillion in [imagine school was for education]: there isn't a class on laws. Not even one. Ignorance of the law is no excuse but by the way we're not going to tell you lol lmao.
I agree that my attempt looks inefficient and that people good at warding off hostile acts should be paid for it. Mainly I have thought lacking ingroup differentiation would be a security vulnerability since it means security depends more on leadership, and leaders can betray their subordinates. Also people who have ingroup preference are more able to win fights because they fight for one another without being commanded to.
Post a Comment