CorruptedArk

joined 1 year ago
[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

Ah right, my bad

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 54 points 2 months ago (7 children)

I think the important takeaway of this meme is that native speakers have mastered the language in the way it wants to be spoken, but non-natives need to master formal language first to really understand casual use fully

I feel it as an autistic person, because even though English is my first language, I still feel like a foreigner learning a second

Both styles are valid

TL;DR: lol it okay

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Honestly, if they don't treat it as a cash grab, I'd love it. Examining and exploring villains gives us tools to learn from the worst parts of ourselves in a safe way. I tend to look at villains as cautionary tales of beings blindly following their natures or doing horrible things to achieve a goal they believe in. I believe there is always value in that.

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

Context of Marvel lore, which is common in the US at least, but I don't know where you're from, so that's a valid question

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 25 points 2 months ago

Uhh, I can't tell if this is a shitpost comment or not, but I'll take the bait.

Ideas like sharing and improving the situation for the poor are perceived as dangerous to rich people because they would need to treat labor they are exploiting as people. It would cut into their profits and therefore the luxuries they enjoy

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 61 points 2 months ago (13 children)

To a capitalist like Tony, socialist ideas are dangerous

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 13 points 2 months ago

How did it feel to melt that one time?

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Rough, got laid off last week my sister is going through a divorce on the other side of the country

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 63 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Someone tell Bones that you can lie on security questions

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

Aye, that's valid, it's just a different theory at that point

[–] CorruptedArk@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Yeah, you're right. It's a pet theory for a reason, I keep it inside the house, but sometimes I let it look out the window, so people can say "that's a nice theory". Maybe someone would sing a song or write a story about it.

It's a dream, but it's no more a dream than any other economic theory

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/37346628

This theory starts off with Capitalism as a base with strong government regulations, basically unlimited over-reach and no nominal taxation up front. In terms of politics, perfect democracy or lottocracy to taste.

Companies are allowed to amass wealth as usual, with freedom to innovate.

The kicker: a universal government competitor (UGC) for every novel company. Instead of acquiring nominal monetary taxation, the government takes half of all of the company's physical labor and resources, additionally sharing any patent rights the company owns.

The universal government competitor operates entirely on the back of the existing company, until that company fails, then it will be funded through its own profits, until it fails. Any additional profit gained is used to fund public services and government duties. The UGC is free to set whatever prices it deems appropriate without risk of getting undercut.

I think a key benefit is "no taxes": normal citizens will only pay taxes in terms of paying for products from the UGC while directly receiving a good or service for it in return. Companies will also always be forced to innovate and keep products safe. It will make billionaires difficult to create.

This, like any other economic theory would be difficult to implement. However, I think it might be simple enough that most people could understand it, and attractive as a challenge for thirsty innovators that the masses might find it palatable.

but idk, i just thought it up in the bath

 

This theory starts off with Capitalism as a base with strong government regulations, basically unlimited over-reach and no nominal taxation up front. In terms of politics, perfect democracy or lottocracy to taste.

Companies are allowed to amass wealth as usual, with freedom to innovate.

The kicker: a universal government competitor (UGC) for every novel company. Instead of acquiring nominal monetary taxation, the government takes half of all of the company's physical labor and resources, additionally sharing any patent rights the company owns.

The universal government competitor operates entirely on the back of the existing company, until that company fails, then it will be funded through its own profits, until it fails. Any additional profit gained is used to fund public services and government duties. The UGC is free to set whatever prices it deems appropriate without risk of getting undercut.

I think a key benefit is "no taxes": normal citizens will only pay taxes in terms of paying for products from the UGC while directly receiving a good or service for it in return. Companies will also always be forced to innovate and keep products safe. It will make billionaires difficult to create.

This, like any other economic theory would be difficult to implement. However, I think it might be simple enough that most people could understand it, and attractive as a challenge for thirsty innovators that the masses might find it palatable.

but idk, i just thought it up in the bath

view more: next ›