>>1527 Revolt over what? That people refuse to be independent? What's that going to look like? Killing someone on welfare, only further entrenching people in the belief that they need a government to "protect" them from dangerous individuals like that?

>>1518 >>1522 I think the real problem is that no one in the world has yet figured out a way to keep any sort of system of competing entities (companies, individuals, etc.) from concentrating resources and victories into the hands of a few. That's just how nature works.

>>1533 >Revolt over what? The government doing stupid corrupt shit. >>1535 That's my entire point.

>>1536 >The government doing stupid corrupt shit. Again, what's that going to look like? You're saying you agree with my post, yet you seemed to have missed the part where I ALSO said "no one else is coming to save you either". So if the government is not coming to save, and people are not coming to save you, and you say that the "answer" is to revolt, what do you think that looks like in practice?

>>1539 >what do you think that looks like in practice? Something like your pic maybe but on a large scale? Luigi times a million? I'm dangerously close to fedposting here though.

>>1540 But that solves nothing. You even said that such a situation only creates a scenario where a nation (Or any territory for that matter) is more vulnerable to revolutionary elements. This is on top of you, seeming to, agree with my point that going full "Not Important" does nothing except make people more reliant upon the government and making things worse as a result. And in a sitation where no government exists, then people will just back whatever warlord comes along and makes things stable. Which is how Napoleon and MaoMao (And arguably Lenin) gained their power. So with that under consideration, perhaps the solution is to NOT go full "Not Important"?

>>1541 >But that solves nothing There is no permanent solution. Only lesser evils. >You even said that such a situation only creates a scenario where a nation (Or any territory for that matter) is more vulnerable to revolutionary elements. Yes, which is why you shouldn't do it too often. >This is on top of you, seeming to, agree with my point that going full "Not Important" does nothing except make people more reliant upon the government How does overturning the government make people more reliant on the government?

>>1544 >How does overturning the government make people more reliant on the government? Because you're disrupting their entire life. The government does serve a purpose in providing a stable set of rules that everyone is expected to follow in order for life to function. You remove that element, and things descend into anarchy. Admittedly not all-at-once, as you even see people act autonomously without a government after any and every natural disaster that occurs. But the longer that government lacks a presence, the more things begin to spiral out of control. All before reaching a point that people will trade in whatever freedom is asked just for something in their life that will create stability.

>>1547 >Because you're disrupting their entire life. The government does serve a purpose in providing a stable set of rules that everyone is expected to follow in order for life to function. You remove that element, and things descend into anarchy. Admittedly not all-at-once, as you even see people act autonomously without a government after any and every natural disaster that occurs. So it does the opposite of making people more reliant on the government? >But the longer that government lacks a presence, the more things begin to spiral out of control. All before reaching a point that people will trade in whatever freedom is asked just for something in their life that will create stability. Unless it's done too often and people then have no choice? So like I said, revolt in moderation because too frequent revolutions leaves you open to foreign powers.

>>1552 >So it does the opposite of making people more reliant on the government? No, it doesn't. It "does" makes them less reliant upon the current government, but MORE DESIROUS for a different government. Meaning, they still rely upon the government. And any revolutions that happen occurs because people still want a government, though a different form of government. That's not what I'm talking about at all. What I was talking about was that people need to learn to be independent of any and every government. That you're success in life shouldn't be dependent upon if you're living in the extremely free U.S. or the extremely authoritarian West Taiwan under the CCP. That is what I'm talking about when I'm saying people need to realize that no one is coming to save them. Because nothing is going to change about the lives of these people unless they first change themselves. >Unless it's done too often and people then have no choice? No, people always have a choice. >So like I said, revolt in moderation because too frequent revolutions leaves you open to foreign powers. Who said anything about foreign powers getting involved? What's going to happen is that you'll end up like Africa, where the warlords rule and are the government there. Or Europe during the Thirty Years' War, arguably the bloodiest war in history.

>>1556 >That's not what I'm talking about at all. What I was talking about was that people need to learn to be independent of any and every government. That you're success in life shouldn't be dependent upon if you're living in the extremely free U.S. or the extremely authoritarian West Taiwan under the CCP If your government is too authoritarian and corrupt, you either comply with it/become the corrupt authority, get shot, or revolt and maybe get shot anyways. You can't just "live better" without interacting with the people putting a boot to your neck. Ignore it and it will go away is not a solution. >No, people always have a choice. >>1547 <All before reaching a point that people will trade in whatever freedom is asked just for something in their life that will create stability. Okay, if you want to be anal about it, no practical other choice. >Who said anything about foreign powers getting involved? I did, as one reason, in addition to the instability reason you give, for not revolting over every little thing.

>>1556 >Vid Holy shit that's cool.

>>1557 >Ignore it and it will go away is not a solution. Except, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about principles that you adhere. The same principles that apply to the entire world regardless of who you are, where you live, and/or what you do. >no practical other choice. No, there is always a choice.

>>1559 >No, there is always a choice. I see you didn't explicitly state it's a practical one, which is my point of contention. So am I to take it you're implying that when people have reached a point that they will trade whatever is asked for stability in order to end the current state of affairs, you consider continuing the anarchy to be a practical choice in their eyes, even though you also outline them as willing to give up anything at that point? That's pretty contradictory. >Except, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about principles that you adhere. The same principles that apply to the entire world regardless of who you are, where you live, and/or what you do. You want people to change their principles to be more self reliant. But when the government is out there fucking everything up, taking responsibility and revolting is just another way to rely on the government in your eyes. But ignoring it also isn't an option when they have their boot to your neck. So what does being self-reliant mean to you? If you can neither stop the government from fucking you by forcibly reforming it, because that's also using the government in the end, nor ignore the government, because they will use their overwhelming resources to crush you if you try to ignore them? What specifically is it you want then?

>>1561 >That's pretty contradictory. It's also dependent on a lot of factors. For example, the scenario you presented of people being invaded by an outside force could be one of the reasons they'd agree to forgoe some of their rights on the justification of dealing with that threat, only to then go back to killing each other once that threat has passed. Then there's also the fact that different people have different limits on how far they will go. Not to mention their responsibilities, if they have any. >But when the government is out there fucking everything up When is the government NOT fucking everything up? >when they have their boot to your neck Why does that matter? Defiance is still an activity. The Communists have spent decades trying to literally beat the religion out of people, with the most infamous case being the Pitesti Prison Experiment in Romania. And the result each and every time is that they can never do it. Perhaps the most widespread example of this happening to a society was MaoMao's Destruction of the Four Olds during the Cultural Revolution. Where despite all that lost history and tradition, the Chinese people still adhered to their beliefs of Taoism, the Mandate of Heaven, Feng shui, and numerous other beliefs. How do you think Falun Gong came into existence, and why it scares the ever-living shit out of the CCP? >So what does being self-reliant mean to you? In short, learning how the system works and taking advantage of it for your own benefit without apology. After all, that's how it works when learning to beat a game. Why is life any different?

>>1564 >When is the government NOT fucking everything up? Some governments are definitely less fucked than others in various ways. Therefore, some of them have to be not fucking everything up at least some of the time, and those parts should be emulated when aiming for a more ideal/less shit government. >China still has religion even though they tried to beat it out of them So? Is the country any better for it? Has simply taking the beating while not giving up their beliefs in their heart made it so that a massive portion of them is no longer living in squalor? >In short, learning how the system works and taking advantage of it for your own benefit without apology. After all, that's how it works when learning to beat a game. Why is life any different? Sounds like bucket crap mentality. Life isn't a "game" because the joys and suffering of others are real. This is the kind of thing Africans and Pajeets think when they don't understand that lying and cheating is morally wrong, instead thinking that it's getting caught that is morally wrong. Failure to game the system is what's wrong, and all other actions including rape and murder are permissible and moral so long as the system doesn't manage to punish you for it. Life isn't a videogame. Another way to see this statement is similar to the belief that if everyone just selfishly persues their own goals, suddenly you'll only be left with hyper-competent people that make society work, Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged style. The problem is, you can learn how the system works all you want, but the people with the most power decide how the system works and will mold it to benefit them, not the general populace and not you unless you worm your way into power with them by hook and crook. That seems to be the mentality of a lot of people that are anti-regulation in general, instead of just anti-bad regulations. They don't want to limit the power of the ultra rich via government regulations because they believe one day they may be ultra rich. So they campaign on deregulation in general, but the only regulations removed are those left that prevent the big boys from gaining more power, not those stopping small businesses from flourishing.

>>1565 >Is the country any better for it? Yeah. By all accounts, the introduction of Falun Gong improved a lot of people's lives. And it's for that exact reason it began scaring the CCP and why it's now practically "outlawed", because it made the people no longer reliant upon them for their prosperity. >Life isn't a "game" Yes, it is. >This is the kind of thing Africans and Pajeets think when they don't understand that lying and cheating is morally wrong No, they know it's morally wrong, they just don't care. >The problem is, you can learn how the system works all you want, but the people with the most power decide how the system works and will mold it to benefit them And this is where the hypocrisy starts and thus the fun begins! Because you try to say that regulation is "good" when it harms companies (Because, somehow, all companies are "evil" by the very nature of them being a company), but then turn around and declare that the regulations only exist to further entrench power (Kind of like how Nintendo practically pleaded that the American government regulate games just to destroy Sega). And this conversation is going to go absolutely fucking nowhere, waste all of our time, and you're going to walk away screaming that I'm a stupid ignorant LOLbertarian who just doesn't "get it".

>>1567 >Yeah. By all accounts, the introduction of Falun Gong improved a lot of people's lives. And it's for that exact reason it began scaring the CCP and why it's now practically "outlawed", because it made the people no longer reliant upon them for their prosperity. A quick search on that new faith says it's power has declined greatly since it was outlawed. Seems like turning the other cheek didn't really work. Sure, it still exists, but it's people still suffer in the same squalor much of China does and are put to work in labor camps nearly 40 years later since its initial rise. >Because you try to say that regulation is "good" when it harms companies Now there's you putting words in my mouth. I said it was good when it limits the powers of the ultra rich. That is, when it places limits upon those with otherwise unchecked power. Kind of like how the US government was originally designed to attempt to keep itself in check with the different branches. You're expanding that down to small businesses. >but then turn around and declare that the regulations only exist to further entrench power When the government is corrupt enough, yes.

>>1567 >And this conversation is going to go absolutely fucking nowhere, waste all of our time, and you're going to walk away screaming that I'm a stupid ignorant LOLbertarian who just doesn't "get it". Also, this sounds like projection. Just swap "lolbert" for whatever it is you want to call me.

>>1568 >new faith says it's power has declined greatly since it was outlawed You're trusting that people won't lie on a poll when expressing an "unpopular opinion", especially when random people you don't know go knocking door-to-door and begin asking personal questions? >it's people still suffer in the same squalor much of China does You can argue the same thing or worse about America. I actually have driven to many of the undeveloped regions of my state, and they're in even worse condition than they were 50 years ago (When many places didn't even have running water). >I said it was good when it limits the powers of the ultra rich Why do you care so much about the "ultra rich"? Even more, what makes someone "ultra rich"? Do you mean someone like Elon Musk and Warren Buffet, two of the wealthiest people in the world? What about Amancio Ortega? What did they ever do to you? >When the government is corrupt enough, yes. That's not how it works. Either regulation is good, or regulations is bad. That's it. Thus far, your argument boils down to the falacy: <No bad tactics, only bad targets >>1569 >whatever it is you want to call me Okay, you're a Communist.

>>1570 >You're trusting that people won't lie on a poll You're assuming the specific method by which the estimates were gathered. These numbers are an estimate by sources outside of China going against the CCP's stated numbers. But that's besides the point. They're still under the heel of the government. The main point stands. >You can argue the same thing or worse about America. So? They haven't overturned the government since things started to get really shitty either. This supports my point. >Why do you care so much about the "ultra rich"? Even more, what makes someone "ultra rich"? Do you mean someone like Elon Musk and Warren Buffet, two of the wealthiest people in the world? What about Amancio Ortega? What did they ever do to you? <What did the poor innocent megacorps do to you? Look, let me give one a face to sympathize with! Generally, they all lobby and mold the system(s) in their interests, regardless of whether it's good or bad for soceity in general. Exactly what you say they should do, regardless of the morality of such actions. Power attracts corruption. It's the nature of the world. Placing limits on the power any one person or organization can help prevent you from being ruled by those who would snowball resources in short order without you ever having a real say. Of course, this is giving some amount of power to the government, who will also abuse it given time, so occasional revolt is necessary. >That's not how it works. Either regulation is good, or regulations is bad. That's it This is a false dichotomy. But if you want to be ruled by whoever has the most money at the time even though you're ostensibly supposed to be in a representative democratic republic, less power to you then. >Okay, you're a Communist. There it is. Everyone who doesn't go to your extreme must be the other extreme. A man who could turn "dismantling the government when it steps on you" into "relying on the government" has enough rhetorical talent to paint anything he disagrees with as his worst enemy. You're a parody of your own beliefs. Saying that any and all regulation is bad makes you, as the "communists" would paint you, someone who thinks "when the government does something, that's communism". All you're doing is submitting yourself to different tyrant over which you have even less influence.

>>1573 >These numbers are an estimate by sources outside of China going against the CCP's stated numbers The numbers which people make a point that they're underestimated due to West Taiwan being such a black box when it comes to desired info? >They're still under the heel of the government Then why does the CCP need to have all those laws outlawing the practice if they're surely under the government's control? >This supports my point. The point that you're arguing against, that people prefer stability over revolutions? >Generally, they all lobby and mold the system(s) in their interests And regular people don't do that? >Placing limits on the power any one person or organization can help prevent you from being ruled by those who would snowball resources in short order without you ever having a real say You do realize that happens both ways, right? Beause who's watching the Watchers? Hell, Labor Unions are a prime example of corrupt elements taking over groups that exist in the name of "the people", as they take a group who exists to limit the power of companies and use it to exploit anyone and everyone else. To the extent that some states have laws, after the Unions lobbied for it, declaring that you cannot find ANY work unless you join a Union. Also, you never actually said what it is that those three people I listed off have ever actually done to you, even as an adjacent action. All you're doing is presenting a class warfare argument, trying to brand a certain group as being "evil" just by them existing and what they COULD be doing. You haven't actually named a specific company or person who's doing the very thing you're talking about. And I suspect that you won't because then the argument stops being about class warfare and becomes about you're own actions. For example, if you were to bring up some of the things people like Bill Gates or Zuckerberg have done, then the argument becomes about how you should stop using Microsoft and Meta products and services then. An action that you, as a person, are able to take part in as there are other products and services out there. But that cannot "certainly" be the answer because (1) you like those products and are never going to stop using them even if to make a point, and (2) it doesn't stop people from being "evil" in the first place. And once you reach that argument, you expose that it was never actually about the regulations or the money or even the lobbying. All the argument was EVER about is that you want to be the Thought Police. >But if you want to be ruled by whoever has the most money at the time Who says that's taking place? >Saying that any and all regulation is bad Because it is, regulations only ever exist as an obstacle. >All you're doing is submitting yourself to different tyrant over which you have even less influence You really don't know how companies operate, do you? But then again, you don't tend to care about all the ways people can become personally involved in a company's operations, and influence it's activity. Because that would actually take some fucking work. And it's MUCH easier to bitch and moan about how everyone more wealthy than you is "evil" simply by the very nature of them having more money (And options), and not doing the exact thing that YOU think they "should" be doing with that money. Which is giving it to you, because even all the philanthropic fluff they do is still "evil" because you're not the one directly benefitting from money. This is not even mentioning how you have zero concept of simple principles like FUCKING TIME, as you think any and every action that takes place must turn on a dime and have a result by the end of the afternoon. Which sort of shows that you have never done anything as simple as raise and care for a fucking plant. Did I miss anything?

>>1575 >The numbers which people make a point that they're underestimated due to West Taiwan being such a black box when it comes to desired info? They're estimated around 10 million. They used to be estimated around 70 million. If both are underestimations anyways, then it's still a decline. This is the kind of argument lefites make about rape and violence against women in Japan being lower, whereby they pretend it must be higher because "actually the numbers are just under-reported because of the culture, they're totally worse than things are over here in our more 'progressive' society" even though they make that same claim of under-reporting and underestimating everywhere. >Then why does the CCP need to have all those laws outlawing the practice if they're surely under the government's control? <If they have boot to their neck, why does the government need to wear that boot? >The point that you're arguing against, that people prefer stability over revolutions? The point that without revolutions things will keep getting shittier. How many governments in a state of severe corruption making life shit for their citizens have bounced back to a state of prosperity without such severe measures that interrupt stability? >And regular people don't do that? They lack the means. The power. The physical and financial resources to make meaningful changes to the system from within its rules. The most politically active tend to just be supporting someone else with more power. >You do realize that happens both ways, right? Yes, I said as much. When you give someone power to limit the power of others, eventually that power too will be abused. >then the argument becomes about how you should stop using Microsoft and Meta products and services then Easy to say on an individual level. But as a group, people will not change the software ecosystems they use en-masse unless the existing ones become unusuable, even if it fucks them in the long term. I've already cut out Microshit myself, but I can't cut out Faceberg without first convincing all the people I know who use Faceberg Messenger to also use an alternative messaging app, which also happens to be everyone I know outside of work. The only true alternative in many cases when dealing giants that have huge marketshare like that is to sew your eyes, zip your mouth, and live in a cave. Sure, you can use some niche alternative software, but you also lose access to the wider world of people that way, crippling you while the rest of the world embraces the enshittification by software giants like Microsoft and Facebook. >All the argument was EVER about is that you want to be the Thought Police. Big moral position to take from the guy who thinks you should use and abuse systems as much as possible and without regard to morality, unless someone uses and abuses the system to make things work in a way that even hints of communism because that would be evil and immoral, which some of the powers that be definitely are. >Who says that's taking place? Me as I watch chain stores move into my local shopping areas, drive local businesses out of business because they offer lower prices and can take a loss on the store for years with the massive resources they've accumulated, and then raise the prices even higher once all the local competition is dead. The result being I have to pay way more for tons of shit. Hitting me right in my bottom line. But I suppose I should just take it up the ass instead of pushing the system to work in a way that benefits me like you said, because Walmart is also pushing the system in a way that benefits them, and they're a business, and doing anything to hinder a business is regulation and regulations are evil. Monopolies and oligopolies are just playing the game well. >Because it is, regulations only ever exist as an obstacle. An obstacle to what? Laws in general are by definition obstacles. So I guess laws are bad and murder should be legal. >You really don't know how companies operate, do you? If they have shareholders, then whatever is the most profitable, and that's not always, and in fact often isn't, in the best interest of their customers. Like insurance, whereby the most profitable way to run the business is denying as many claims as possible so many of your customers end up paying for nothing even misfortune does strike them. >Did I miss anything? You forgot to call me a communist again. And also rescind your prediction that I would huff and puff and run away screaming because I think you "just don't get it". Funny you first made that prediction in the same post you started redtexting, and now are repeatedly accusing me of "just not getting it".

>>1578 >The point that without revolutions things will keep getting shittier And is there any guarentee that things WON'T be worse if a revolution DOES take place? >How many governments in a state of severe corruption making life shit for their citizens have bounced back to a state of prosperity without such severe measures that interrupt stability? And how many of those governments have actually lasted longer than a century? >They lack the means No, they don't. And you just admitted that it's the same shit, but from a different animal. >When you give someone power to limit the power of others, eventually that power too will be abused. So the solution is to create a scenario were there are as few centralized measures as possible to control what people personally do. A concept completely opposed to what you're suggesting, as it would ALSO mean no centralized government agency is regulting businesses. >Easy to say on an individual level No, it's not. Have you ever tried switching operating systems? Hell, just change the system language on your phone. >But as a group... And there we go again. You proceed to deflect about how something is "impossible" on the excuse "Well, someone else" is doing it. Like how niggers justify stealing from someone's house because, "Well, this other guy was stealing stuff and got away with it." Just because "someone else" is doing something doesn't mean you have to do it. >Big moral position to take from the guy who thinks you should use and abuse systems as much as possible and without regard to morality Except I never said that last bit. >Me as I watch chain stores move into my local shopping areas, drive local businesses out of business because they offer lower prices That's not how it works. Are you still supporting those local businesses, or are you playing the part of the lemming as you proceed to go where the price is lower? >An obstacle to what? Doing business >If they have shareholders, then whatever is the most profitable That's not how it works and you know jackshit about running a business. Thank you for confirming that.

>>1578 >>1582 In fact, let me show you just how much you know jack about running a business. Pics are the financials for the past few years of three companies. Which company do you think has the highest stock price?

>>1582 >And is there any guarentee that things WON'T be worse if a revolution DOES take place? Is there any guarantee things will get better if it doesn't? >And how many of those governments have actually lasted longer than a century? Not many, which may show that a democratic republic is a more enduring form of government, but there are other factors to be accounted for, natural resources, the geography of the coast, the changing climate of world politics. A great many things can contribute to the rise and fall of a nation. Regardless of those factors though, the same or similar form of government would be a good bet for the future. >No, they don't. Go ahead, vote with your wallet. Other people will vote with their much bigger wallet. Including people that aren't even from your nation. >So the solution is to create a scenario were there are as few centralized measures as possible to control what people personally do. That just creates a power vacuum that will soon be filled. >A concept completely opposed to what you're suggesting, as it would ALSO mean no centralized government agency is regulting businesses. Without this, businesses will just keep growing and quickly monopolies will form, that will also control what people do. You can't live with government, but you can't live without it. Barring going innawoods and forsaking society that is. >Have you ever tried switching operating systems? Yeah, it was a bit of a headache, but using Windows was also quickly becoming a bit of a headache. >You proceed to deflect about how something is "impossible" on the excuse "Well, someone else" is doing it. Where did I say doing the thing I've already done is impossible? Putting words in my mouth again to suit your arguments? I'm saying it's not going happen en-masse, which you seem to agree with when you said <No, it's not. Have you ever tried switching operating systems? >Except I never said that last bit. <learning how the system works and taking advantage of it for your own benefit without apology So I should apologize for taking advantage of the system for my own benefit? Getting mixed signals here. >That's not how it works. Are you still supporting those local businesses, or are you playing the part of the lemming as you proceed to go where the price is lower? It is how it works. My individual boycott of Wallshart has no effect on their bottom line. The boycott of me and everyone else I can convince, which won't be many, is still insignificant. They set up these stores expecting to run them at loss for up to several years if necessary. People will shop where there's a better deal. Generally thinking about the long term effects of where you shop is for the upper middle and upper classes who have much more disposable income. The lower middle and lower classes will still shop wherever they can afford, and with the increasingly low buying power the dollar has, that's going to mean invasive chain stores. >Doing business So? Laws are an obstacle to doing certain things. That's their purpose. If you want a lawless world, just say so. >>1583 >Which company do you think has the highest stock price? There are other factors at play. A company with bad financials could end up with high stocks through market manipulation.

>>1586 >Is there any guarantee things will get better if it doesn't? Yes, because I at least know the devil that I'm dealing with. >businesses will just keep growing and quickly monopolies will form, that will also control what people do No, they won't. In fact, if you actually bother to look up what happened in the past, all the bitching about "robber barons" and "trusts" was mostly fake news, generated by media companies who were in bed with the ACTUAL monopolies in the market and printed story-after-story about how the seas will boil, Hell will freeze over, and cats and dogs will begin to live together if you allow those "evil robber barons" to operate in the market. I guess it goes to show that the propaganda worked since people still repeat those falsities to this very day. >So I should apologize for taking advantage of the system for my own benefit? No, but there's still a sportmanship about it. >My individual boycott of Wallshart has no effect on their bottom line It does effect the bottom line of the small business that you're bitching about that closed, since you're so fucking selfish and short-sited that you'd rather trap yourself rather than keep your options open as to where you can shop. >People will shop where there's a better deal. Or where the service and products are better. For example, I don't buy gasoline from Costco despite it being the lowest price in town. Instead, I go to one of the Good 2 Go stations and spend anywhere from 50 cents to a dollar more per galon. Why? Well, first, they are one of two chains who sell ethanol free gasoline (Which is much cleaner for cars to burn, doesn't corode the engine as quickly, and lasts longer) and, second, their affiliation with Phillips 66 means that any of the money I spend there eventually makes it's way back to me when I receive my dividend from owning Phillips 66 stock. Another example is how I specifically choose which stores I buy my games from because, while I can find other local stores that often have a similar or lower price on a game, I prefer to go to one specific store due to the reputation and relationship that I have with the store's owner and will proceed to spend (Sometimes more) money there because I want his business to continue and like the service he provides. You're telling me that no one, not even yourself, are capable of doing that when it comes to having standards? That all you see is a so-called "better deal", and act like a crazed baboon because it's "ten cents less" at the store run by the person who you hate and know will eventually screw you over. >Generally thinking about the long term effects of where you shop is for the upper middle and upper classes No, it's a conscious decision that EVERYONE is responsible for and capable of making. I'm poor as fuck, yet even I still go out of my way to avoid ever using Amazon when I need to order something. >The lower middle and lower classes will still shop wherever they can afford That's now how it works. If you want something bad enough, you'll find a way to afford it. Have you ever noticed how even fucking hobos somehow have the latest several-hundred dollar iPhone? Not to mention all the endless jokes about how niggers and trailer-park trash will have the latest and most expensive tech, yet they're practically living out of a motorhome. Hell, that even describes my fucking aunt. >A company with bad financials could end up with high stocks through market manipulation. That's not how it works.

>>1601 >Yes, because I at least know the devil that I'm dealing with. Sounds like battered woman syndrome. >No, they won't. In fact, if you actually bother to look up what happened in the past Monopolies didn't happen when there were no or less regulations, and were fake news spread by, the existing monopolies at the time? Are you sure that's what you wanted to say? >No, but there's still a sportmanship about it. So, you don't want to trust the government to behave under threat of revolution, but you expect corporations to behave and be sportsmanlike out of the goodness of their heart? No, they will do everything in their power to grow their power, without apology, just as you say they should. >It does effect the bottom line of the small business that you're bitching about that closed Not if I can't convince enough people to also shop there where the deals are worse. To say nothing of the other tactics a larger multi-national corp might use, like making deals with suppliers to cut off local competition from the goods and materials they need. >Or where the service and products are better. You know that isn't always the case. And what's to stop a chain store from providing better products and better prices until the businesses around them fail? Usually they already do that to a degree by virtue of providing a variety of products that don't exist in the local market before they show up. >For example, I don't buy gasoline from Costco despite it being the lowest price in town. Instead, I go to one of the Good 2 Go stations and spend anywhere from 50 cents to a dollar more per galon. Why? Well, first, they are one of two chains who sell ethanol free gasoline (Which is much cleaner for cars to burn, doesn't corode the engine as quickly, and lasts longer) and, second, their affiliation with Phillips 66 means that any of the money I spend there eventually makes it's way back to me when I receive my dividend from owning Phillips 66 stock. Well good for you, since you can afford that, and even more, can afford to buy stocks. Any more advice to give from your ivory tower? >No, it's a conscious decision that EVERYONE is responsible for and capable of making. I'm poor as fuck, yet even I still go out of my way to avoid ever using Amazon when I need to order something. You really, really, don't sound like a poorfag, considering what you just said before this. And if you're posting here, with this much knowledge on the subject, you certainly aren't a youngfag. If you're in your late 20s and early 30s, and are still "poor as fuck", then I don't think your mantra has been working for you very well. As your vid says, the conditions of those at the bottom should be improving. And not a glacial pace of a pittance per decade. >Have you ever noticed how even fucking hobos somehow have the latest several-hundred dollar iPhone? You underestimate the price of iPhones, seem to forget that hipsters like to dress as hobos and even beg for money despite not being poor, seem to forget about stolen and jailbroken devices, seem to forget about used devices, et cetera. >Not to mention all the endless jokes about how niggers and trailer-park trash will have the latest and most expensive tech, yet they're practically living out of a motorhome. Hell, that even describes my fucking aunt. Luxuries have become cheaper. Living has become more expensive. I could buy a 55'' "smart" TV for under 300 bucks and a decent brand new phone for another 200-300. But that wouldn't cover rent in the area I live, and rent here is below the national average. Hell, that total is less than half the price of the median rent in my state. The things to get onto poor people about having are fancy cars. But with little exception for the more well off people I know, Most of everyone I know drives some old beat up thing they have to fix up themselves. Not to mention if you are homeless and want to find a job, having a phone number and the ability to apply to jobs online is a Godsend. Getting a smart device by any means necessary is a good investment for someone trying to get out of poverty like that. Not that not having a home address, or possibly even a vehicle isn't also massive hurdle. >That's not how it works. GameStop. Are you just pretending to be retarded? Lecturing about how I just don't get it, and then pretending a stock prices can't easily be divorced from profitability? On a videogame board? After GameStonks happened?

>>1603 >Monopolies didn't happen when there were no or less regulations No, they did happen, they were just much easier to topple because of a lack of regulation. That's why they had to default to the media to do their dirty work, because the government was too slow. >but you expect corporations to behave and be sportsmanlike out of the goodness of their heart No, for their survival. Companies who waste their time trying to screw over, not only their customers but, their rivals are heading toward a path of destruction. Because then they have no one to compete with, they stagnate, and are eventually replaced when someone with an original idea comes along with a better business model. >To say nothing of the other tactics a larger multi-national corp might use, like making deals with suppliers to cut off local competition from the goods and materials they need. Even Micky D's and their evil Golden Arches doesn't pull that shit because it's a tactic that guarentees that they'll lose money. Again, actually name a specific company who pulls that shit. Which, now that I think about it, you never actually did for the other stuff I asked about. >And what's to stop a chain store from providing better products and better prices until the businesses around them fail? Again, can you name a specific company who does this? While Walmart is famous for their lower prices, everyone knows that it is due to their products being of lower quality. Even Amazon sells low-quality shit. So can you name a company who is offering better quality products at lower costs for the expressed purpose of driving out the competition? >Usually they already do that to a degree by virtue of providing a variety of products that don't exist in the local market before they show up. So they're providing people with shit they don't need, and haven't needed? That's your argument? That's a stupid business model because if your customers didn't need your trash in the first place, then they have zero reason to go to your store. Even then, where are they going to get the products to fill the rest of their store with when the cheapest option is to source locally, and the local farmers don't like big companies trying to destroy their customers (The local stores). >Well good for you, since you can afford that You're saying it's a "good thing" that I can afford gasoline, in the modern world where having a car is a requirement? >and even more, can afford to buy stocks You really have no idea of saving money, do you? Or how cheap and easy stocks even are. I'm living on less than $25k for the past five years, with 5% of that money going towards investments. If I can figure that shit out, so can other people. What's your excuse? >If you're in your late 20s and early 30s, and are still "poor as fuck", then I don't think your mantra has been working for you very well. Why is it always this fucking run around? That you constantly bitch and moan about how "everyone" is trying to take advantage of you throughs some "get rich quick" scheme, and then whine when people reveal that there is no "get rich quick" scheme when it comes to getting ahead. It's not the world's problem that you're so fucking lazy and self-entitled that you think you can somehow get ahead in life without putting in some amount of effort. >As your vid says, the conditions of those at the bottom should be improving. In a lot of ways, it has. How many people could afford a cellphone 30 years ago? Hell, you can even find a decent used car for only a few grand. >You underestimate the price of iPhones, seem to forget that hipsters like to dress as hobos and even beg for money despite not being poor, seem to forget about stolen and jailbroken devices, seem to forget about used devices, et cetera. You seem to forget that shit still costs a lot of money. And if they can afford that, then what else are they capable of affording but refuse to do so? >I could buy a 55'' "smart" TV for under 300 bucks and a decent brand new phone for another 200-300. But that wouldn't cover rent in the area I live You're attempting to argue that you have $600 to spend on luxuries, but absolutely cannot spend that $600 on your rent instead? Or even something else that could go towards improving your future? Hell, you could spend that $600 buying stock for B&G Foods, see an annual dividend of $100, on top letting it ride on the options market which only increases your return (Where, at worst, you'll just have to buy it back) >and the ability to apply to jobs online is a Godsend. You do know that every single local lbirary has an entire row of computers free for public use, right? >Getting a smart device by any means necessary is a good investment for someone trying to get out of poverty like that. You're argument would be correct if they were using the cheap-ass $80 Nokia smartphones, like the one I use for work and spend $15 every two months on to have service. Not the latest and greatest Samsungs and iPhones. >GameStop A once-in-a-lifetime event that didn't even last a year from start to finish? One which the Ledditors have attempted to replciate a handful of times since and it never happened again. You're proving my point that you don't know jack about the markets or making money.

>>1604 >No, they did happen, they were just much easier to topple because of a lack of regulation. That's why they had to default to the media to do their dirty work, because the government was too slow. They were easier to topple, except the power they had enabled them to control the media and further cement their power? Doesn't sound like they were so easy to topple. >No, for their survival. Companies who waste their time trying to screw over, not only their customers but, their rivals are heading toward a path of destruction. Because then they have no one to compete with, they stagnate, and are eventually replaced when someone with an original idea comes along with a better business model. Not if they use their power to crush any up and coming competition. That's the basics of laissez-faire business. Once you reach the top, you gotta learn how to keep it. And yes, they still do that now through bad regulations, because the government is corrupt and in their pocket. But that's the roundabout way of doing it. Doing it directly without any of the few good regulations left to impede them is more efficient if they're allowed to. >Even Micky D's and their evil Golden Arches doesn't pull that shit because it's a tactic that guarentees that they'll lose money Why would they lose money? Companies love trying to buy out their suppliers so they don't have to negotiate a deal with them, and can set the rules for their competition. Often it's illegal because of regulations, but not always. >So can you name a company who is offering better quality products at lower costs for the expressed purpose of driving out the competition? Walmart has started pushing Better Goods branded products alongside their Great Value branded products. Both are cheaper than local fare, but one is slightly more expensive than other and higher quality. >So they're providing people with shit they don't need, and haven't needed Or things they used to have to order with a high shipping price, or things they used to have to go out of town or out of state for. Also, if people only bought things they needed, videogames would not exist. Oh look, Walmart sells games and GameStop is perpetually dying. >Even then, where are they going to get the products to fill the rest of their store with when the cheapest option is to source locally, and the local farmers don't like big companies trying to destroy their customers (The local stores). That's the rub. Big chain stores can ship from elsewhere and avoid the cheapest option if they get stonewalled, because as I've said repeatedly, with their large pool of resources, they can run new stores at a loss for years to beat out the competition. Further, many farmers these days tend to be perpetually in debt due to the oligopoly and price fixing on large farm equipment, and will generally sell to whoever they possible can in order to not go bankrupt. >You're saying it's a "good thing" that I can afford gasoline, in the modern world where having a car is a requirement? You can afford to pick and choose pricier gas. You're being intentionally obtuse here. In fact, you may have been doing that the whole time and I'm just being trolled. >I'm living on less than $25k for the past five years Damn, you suck at life for someone who thinks he's got it all figured out. I've gone up over $10 an hour working at a "small" business in the last four years. I don't think your philosophy is really panning out for you. >That you constantly bitch and moan about how "everyone" is trying to take advantage of you throughs some "get rich quick" scheme, and then whine when people reveal that there is no "get rich quick" scheme when it comes to getting ahead. People used to be able to buy houses in their late 20s. Now they're waiting until their 40s just to get a loan they can't pay off until they retire. And that number is rising. I didn't say you should be rich in five years, but clearly you're not moving forward if after 5 years of supposed good financial behavior you're still "poor as fuck." Maybe try pulling your bootstraps a little harder? >In a lot of ways, it has. How many people could afford a cellphone 30 years ago? Like I said, many luxuries have gotten much cheaper, while many necesseties have gotten more expensive, like housing, food, electricity, large appliances. Though phones have in recent decades fallen in the middle between luxury and necessity. >You seem to forget that shit still costs a lot of money. And if they can afford that, then what else are they capable of affording but refuse to do so? You conveniently ignored all the ways they can get one for less than full price I outlined, and furthermore, the full price of a brand new iphone that will last you a minimum of three years is 800-1100 bucks, before tax. It's about, or less than, a month's rent. And the poorer people I know with "new" iphones got theirs for around 300 bucks and are generation or two behind. I'm really beginning to doubt your claims that every bum on the street has a new $1000 phone. It's not just that it would require poor spending habits, it's a good way to get mugged, which actual homeless people will be doing everything to avoid. Hell, in Bongistan, mud muggers have started exclusively mugging people with brand new iphones. >You're attempting to argue that you have $600 to spend on luxuries, but absolutely cannot spend that $600 on your rent instead? Those luxuries will last for years, and are half the price of rent. Rent must be paid over and over again every month. Saving an extra half a month's rent to spend on a TV or a phone, once every 3 to 5 years, sometimes even 10 years if they don't break, is less than a drop in the bucket. Not buying those cheap luxuries, which are only bought very infrequently, will not have any tangible effect on a person's overall finances. It's day-to-day spending where most saving and scimping is to be done with any moderate effect. Which is why people shop at Walmart. >$100 a year Oh boy, in a decade that might snowball with incremental re-investments enough to still not afford the rising price of a single month's rent. >You do know that every single local lbirary has an entire row of computers free for public use, right? Or instead of only being able to play the job gacha for a limited time of day in a single location, you can do it anywhere at any time, vastly improve how much you can spin the numbers. If you don't get a brand new phone, you can get a used one for under $200 bucks and vastly improve your ability to find a job. Libraries don't solve the issue of needing a phone number people can contact you at, and you can check emails immediately when they show up if you have a phone. Homeless people have actually been kicked out of libraries more and more often lately, and public libraries in general are on the decline. >A once-in-a-lifetime event Oh yeah, I forgot that no other cases of stock manipulation have happened in the last 80 years.

>>1605 >Those luxuries will last for years, and are half the price of rent. Rent must be paid over and over again every month. Saving an extra half a month's rent to spend on a TV or a phone, once every 3 to 5 years, sometimes even 10 years if they don't break, is less than a drop in the bucket Or to let me put it another way. If you've fallen on hard times and can't afford rent, selling your phone isn't going to get you anywhere. It's definitely not going to buy you another month of rent. I could sell every luxury item I own, my monitors, my computer and perpherals, my television, my fan, my phone for a cheaper used one, what little furniture I have, and all the other little junk I've been given for free over the years since I don't buy much else, and it would net me maybe two or three months rent around here. Everything I've bought over the last 10 years for a little more time in a crappy apartment.

>>1605 >>1606 >You're being intentionally obtuse here. >Damn, you suck at life for someone who thinks he's got it all figured out. >I didn't say you should be rich in five years, but clearly you're not moving forward if after 5 years of supposed good financial behavior you're still "poor as fuck." >You conveniently ignored all the ways they can get one for less than full price >Oh boy, in a decade that might snowball with incremental re-investments enough to still not afford the rising price of a single month's rent. Okay, so I should be doing the same exact thing that you're doing? Buying from Wally World and Amazon because they have the "best deals" in town, even though I know those places are evil? Buying the cheapest gas even though it's going to destroy my car because it's the wrong type but at least I'm "saving money"? Spending $600 on items I don't need but can afford because I just happened to have a little extra spending money left over this month? Buying items that I DO need but are still several hundred dollars more than another item that does the same exact thing, but at least I'm not paying "full price" for it? Bitching about how the system is broken and keeping me down as I proceed to do the same exact thing everyone else is doing and wondering why nothing ever changes about my life? And eventually come to the conclusion that it's the world that needs to change and not myself?

>>1617 >Okay, so I should be doing the same exact thing that you're doing? Buying from Wally World and Amazon because they have the "best deals" in town I can't convince my family not to shop at Walmart and drag me with them at times, but I generally buy most food stuffs at Aldi's, which isn't publicly traded, though still is an international business. >Buying the cheapest gas even though it's going to destroy my car Why does your car have such special gas needs? When I was a kid, my family drove a cheap beat up car for 15 years on nothing but the cheapest gas around. If you have to pay more for gas just because the very cheapest car you could find needs that pricey gas, you're probably losing money in the long run that way. >Spending $600 on items I don't need but can afford because I just happened to have a little extra spending money left over this month? Try a little extra spending money leftover this three years or so. If you can't afford $600 bux for minor long lasting luxuries in a three to five year period, you're fucking destitute. How can you be that poor for half a decade and think you're on the right financial track? >Bitching about how the system is broken and keeping me down as I proceed to do the same exact thing everyone else is doing and wondering why nothing ever changes about my life? But my life is getting better? Slowly but surely, I have a career and I'm moving foward. You seem to be under the impression that only people at the very bottom begging for handouts are the ones who can see how life is deteriorating for the lower classes. >And eventually come to the conclusion that it's the world that needs to change and not myself? You think the world needs to change too though? You want to make all regulations go away. People in power are doing things you think are bad (supporting any regulations whatsoever). They learned how the system works and are taking advantage of it for their own benefit without apology.

>>1627 >Why does your car have such special gas needs? EVERY car in existence has special gas needs!!! Unless your running on diesel, every vehicle requires pure gasoline. With different cars requiring that gas to have different octane ratings (You can see what's required for your vehicle in it's manual). However, that's now what I'm talking about. What I am refering to in regards to buying gas that will destroy my car is in reference to ETHANOL. For the past 50 years, gasoline companies have been incentivized by the government to pursue "green fuels", the most lobbied of which by the environmentalists being ethanol. And the result that we have today is that anywhere from 10%-15% of the gasoline we buy from the average pump is ethanol. Why is that a problem? Well, here's the short list. First, ethanol is an insane pollutant. Despite all the claims about it being a "green" fuel due to it being made from corn, actually burning it as a fuel (Like in a car) causes far more toxic pollutants to enter the air. Even leaded gasoline cames nowhere close in terms of being so poisonous. Second, ethanol burns quicker. Meaning that instead of getting, say, 400 miles on a single tank of pure gasoline, the ethanol mix is instead leaving you with 350 miles for a single tank. Third, cars are not designed to burn ethanol. The big advantage that diesel engines have of gasoline engines is that diesel engines are basically designed to burn practically anything and everything you put in the tank, from vegetable oil to liquor. That's not the case with your average gasoline engine as it's specifically designed to consome petroluem-based fuels (Remember what I said earlier about octane ratings?). So if you begin to put the "wrong fuel" in your car, what do you think's going to happen? This is in addition to, again, how filthy it is to burn, and how your car is the one required to filter all that shit out. So the short story is that, unless you buy ethanol-free gasoline, you're filling your car up with fuel it isn't designed to burn, that will require your vehicle to receive maintenance much more often from using the incorrect fuel, and is much more harmful for the air quality that you and everyone else are breathing. And if you want to know why it's so much less expensive than the pure gas, it's because of the government subsidies designed to keep the corn industry alive, the same subsidies that caused corn-syrup to be a fucking problem in the first place. >But my life is getting better? Slowly but surely, I have a career and I'm moving foward. Then why are you adovcating that everyone else throw that all away for a pointless revolution that may not even improve anything, and has a far more likely chance of making things worse? >You think the world needs to change too though? I WOULD like for some things to change, but I also know there's a fat chance of it happening. >They learned how the system works and are taking advantage of it for their own benefit without apology. Not really considering how just about every government is fucking broke, and they're scrambling around trying to find the next magic formula that will save their asses. In the 90's, it was the internet. In the Aughts, that was the Forever Wars in the Middle East. In the 2010's, it was mass migration. For this decade that is the 2020's, it's AI. And for the next decade, it will be something else.

>>1632 >Second, ethanol burns quicker. Meaning that instead of getting, say, 400 miles on a single tank of pure gasoline, the ethanol mix is instead leaving you with 350 miles for a single tank. Sorry, I should have read more closely. Getting better mileage makes it effectively cheaper gas, even if the pricetag is higher. >And if you want to know why it's so much less expensive than the pure gas, it's because of the government subsidies designed to keep the corn industry alive, the same subsidies that caused corn-syrup to be a fucking problem in the first place. I can agree with you that subsidies are pretty much never good. For instance, farmers keep recieving subsidies to keep the industry from collapsing. But they only need those subsidies because of the price gouging by the equipment manufacturers. So really, it's just the taxpayer's footing the bill whenever the farm equipment manufactures are trying to squeeze more money out of farmers than there is to be had. >Then why are you adovcating that everyone else throw that all away for a pointless revolution that may not even improve anything, and has a far more likely chance of making things worse? Why everyone else? A regime change would effect me as well. And the government changing doesn't necessarily mean everyone loses everything. >and has a far more likely chance of making things worse? Strong opinion rooted in your battered wife syndrome. As things get worse, and they inevitably will as the corrupt and powerful rarely relinquish the structures they've molded without force, the chances of it somehow being worse will shink and shrink. >I WOULD like for some things to change, but I also know there's a fat chance of it happening. So you prefer to let the noose slowly tighten in exchange for stability, even though it's bad in the long run. Kind of reminds me of people who shop almost exclusively at Walmart. >Not really considering how just about every government is fucking broke, and they're scrambling around trying to find the next magic formula that will save their asses. LOL. LMAO, even. Government/national debt is there by design. Anyone campaigning on reducing it, let alone eliminating it, in most countries, is lying. The national debt crisis is an illusion. It's been an impending problem for decades as you outlined yourself, but never comes to a head, much like global cooling global warming the climate crisis. And it's a system centuries in the making, not easily uprooted.

UK brings out a bill to ban under-18 VPN usage. See page 19. They also want spyware installed in all phones to detect CSAM.