Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

Papashlapa

Lord Nagafen Raider
154
244
Of course we can do better, but you want to destroy the only system mankind has ever found that provides real improvements in human existence in favour of some pie in the sky utopia that's promising to solve all the world's problems immediately, as if it were just that easy. History is important because it gives you perspective. No matter how much you rail about how much the real world sucks right now, things are substantially better today all over the world for literally BILLIONS of people than they were even 5 or 10 years ago. Things are moving in the right direction. Compared to the progress most of human existence has seen, things are improving at an astonishing pace. That doesn't mean we should be content with it, but it does mean we should be very wary of fucking up what works amazingly well in order to usher in some mythical promised land.

That's all irrelevant anyway, because you're trying to paint me like I'm saying we shouldn't change anything, things are fine and stop bitching. That's the complete opposite of what I want. I want massive, radical change. I just want it in the complete opposite direction. Nearly every issue you complain about, you're attributing to the wrong cause.
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
what radical changes would you like to see.

running joke in our political class during Occupy Wallstreet was bums doing nothing and saying a lot. Noble intentions? Nope. Pathetic was the common saying. This wasn't a Ghandi rally against British. This wasn't a Martin Luther King Jr's rally for black men.

That was exactly it. Occupy Wallstreet: bunch of brainwashed kids jumping at every chance they can get to cry for social justice. Ridiculous slogans of "We are 99%." There was no real political goal, no united front, completely disjointed and ineffective because of lack of central authority.

Even the core die hard left wing nutbars from 1960s are turning away from social communes and creating their own companies aka capitalism to funnel their "organic" products to consumer....through Wal-mart. Some of the successful entrepreneurs go on to make millions from their once naive dreams. And they exit with millions dollars in cash after building a highly profitable business that sells "organic" yogurts.

As well as millions of customers in USA turning away from big banks to their local credit unions.

Capitalism is working as intended and improving lives of people.
 

Papashlapa

Lord Nagafen Raider
154
244
what radical changes would you like to see.
In the American system? Dismantle SS moving forward. Current liabilities have to be paid, so you'll have to deal with that somehow, including people who have paid in to the system all their lives. However, my first move would probably be a personal retirement savings account for any new incoming funds, that's not available to be raided by politicians. Health care I really don't know what to do with. Probably some sort of voucher, with a plan to phase it down to a means tested voucher in the future. Completely severing the government payment link in health care would be desirable in the long run, but in the short run prices need time to adjust, and there would be an unacceptably long period of time where prices would still be at distorted levels without people having support from government. i.e. prices would still be super high (though declining) but people wouldn't have help in paying them so they'd just die I guess. That's unacceptable, so there'd need to be a gradual transition.

Military needs absolutely massive cutbacks. Generally speaking, if it's for force projection, it's probably safe to scrap, though obviously there are exceptions. It should definitely be feasible to cut the defense budget by 2/3rds without sacrificing defensive capability, though the ability to wage land wars in the Middle East or Asia would be severely curtailed. America has zero enemies capable of posing any sort of credible threat to the genuine national security of the nation, and certainly no threats that are solved 50,000 tanks or whatever the fuck the number is, 10 carrier groups, or 1.5million active duty armed forces.

On education, federal government needs to GTFO immediately. Education is a parental thing, so anything that increases parental choice is okay by me. I'm a fan of vouchers, preferably means tested, usable at any educational institution, including religious schools. If a parent wants their child risen in a religious school that's a family decision, though I'm an Atheist so personally it wouldn't be my preference.

Government absolutely needs to get out of the business of directing, managing, tuning, controlling or tweaking the economy. Just stop. Now. Get rid of the subsidies, get rid of the tax expenditures, get rid of the loopholes, tax credits, all of it. Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers, even if it picks winners sometimes. The reality is, when it's not your money on the line, you don't have the same kind of incentive make sure it comes back with an adequate return. The money tends to be doled out the same way all government money is, for political purposes, and to paraphrase Friedman, I don't believe political self-interest is any more noble than economic self-interest. I'm okay with funding basic research, but not any commercialization. Getting the product to consumers is what the market is best at, and government is worst at. Also, no more bailouts. Period.

The most important thing is to stop fixing the price of money. The interest rate is the most important price in the entire economy, affecting every other price, the decisions of every person and every firm. The actions of the Federal Reserve are the biggest contributor to the rampant irresponsibility of wall street, the risky speculation and the bull market culture. The Fed has spent the last 25 years printing money and funneling it in to wall street, inflating asset prices and causing bubble after bubble after bubble. It's the main reason the wealth disparity is increasing. Massive, windfall gains on the stock market from asset price inflation and a fed-created floor under the stock market any time the mania ends and things crash back down to a more realistic level. It's gotta stop.

That's way longer than I meant for it to be, and I could go on, but I think you get the picture. I'm a dirty capitalist (obviously).
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
That would mean ending the federal reserve and the preferential interest rates the top banks get. plus don't forget trust busting, monopoly busting has gone the way of the dodo
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
yes, too much capitals for banks. so much capitals...don't even want to call them money at this point....since they are just numbers...

dumar should come back and ignite suicide topic again.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Of course we can do better, but you...
Stop right there. Why aren't we?

You want to destroy the only system mankind has ever found that provides real improvements in human existence in favour of some pie in the sky utopia that's promising to solve all the world's problems immediately, as if it were just that easy.
I never said utopia. There's no such thing as a utopia. I never said all our problems would be solved, either. You're pulling a Hodj here, taking what I said and twisting it around so it's easier for you to portray it as wrong. I'm talking about pursuing our potential as human beings and doing the best we can do. It won't be perfect, it will never be perfect, but we can do better than this and so we should. If we can do better but we're not, then we're doing something wrong. If there's a specific reason why we're not, then that's what needs to be fixed.

You suggested several "radical changes". Hey, I'd be down for that too. I'm willing to try the next iteration of Capitalism in the hopes that it would solve some of today's problems. 2 issues, though:
1) As long as we're working with money as the limited resource everyone has to compete for, we will have "haves" and "have-nots". This will NOT be determined by who is most productive in society, but by who is better able to rig the system in their favor. 3 guesses who that is.
2) Radical changes? Sounds great! Let's do it! What's that? We can't? Why not? I'll give you 3 guesses.

We're both proposing solutions, although we're on differing points of the "radical change" scale. Neither solution is currently feasible because THE SYSTEM WON'T ALLOW THEM. Well, the rich people in control of the system, anyway. I'm suggesting a system where there will be no "haves" who make the decisions for everybody else. You're suggesting a system where we patch up a few of the leaks in our boat and hope the rich people behave a little better next time... is one more naive than the other?
 

Papashlapa

Lord Nagafen Raider
154
244
Money isn't a limited resource, we can make as much of it as we want. Stop thinking in terms of dollars and think in terms of stuff. Money is just a reflection of the stuff in the economy, and you're too fixated on the reflection in the water to see the reality above it. As long as resources are scarce, there will be haves and have nots. No system can fix that because no system can remove scarcity from the world.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Money isn't a limited resource, we can make as much of it as we want. Stop thinking in terms of dollars and think in terms of stuff. Money is just a reflection of the stuff in the economy, and you're too fixated on the reflection in the water to see the reality above it. As long as resources are scarce, there will be haves and have nots. No system can fix that because no system can remove scarcity from the world.
Bullshit. There are enough resources on this world to provide a comfortable life for every person several times over. There would be no "haves" and "have-nots" because everybody would have what they needed and wanted, even if they literally "possessed" nothing. And you know what the irony is? Capitalism is forcing us to be as inefficient and wasteful as possible with our resources, as long as it's profitable. We could actually be far more efficient and responsible without it.

EDIT: By the way, you didn't answer my question. If we can do better, why aren't we?
 

Papashlapa

Lord Nagafen Raider
154
244
Bullshit. There are enough resources on this world to provide a comfortable life for every person several times over. There would be no "haves" and "have-nots" because everybody would have what they needed and wanted, even if they literally "possessed" nothing. And you know what the irony is? Capitalism is forcing us to be as inefficient and wasteful as possible with our resources, as long as it's profitable. We could actually be far more efficient and responsible without it.
Literally everything you just said is demonstrably false. In the process of destroying the capitalist system, you also destroy the incredibly efficient productive output it generates. Why was the Soviet Union barely able to feed its people, despite being the most resource rich nation on earth? Because the lack of a price system, the central direction of the economy, led to massive waste and inefficient production. You're assuming we can maintain, or even increase, current worldwide production levels after dismantling the current economic system. That's simply not true.

By the way, in the western world, there really are no haves and have nots. There are "have tons" and "have a little's". The level we take for the standard of poverty in the west is miles ahead of the average standard of living in the non-capitalist world.

Capitalism is not forcing us to be wasteful with resources. Capitalism is the least resource-wasteful system we've ever devised. When all property is private, the owner of the property has ever incentive to maintain it, to use it as efficiently as he can, and not to waste it. When property is publicly owned, the benefit from using it is concentrated, but the cost is diffused. If you want to see what happens to natural resources when they're owned by the community, go read about the Aral Sea.

Your perspective is so skewed it blows my mind. I'm not trying to say there aren't legitimate problems with Capitalism, but there are also MASSIVE benefits, and when comparing it to another proposed system you need to look at both sides. You're completing ignoring all the good things it provides and railing against every negative thing you can find, often blowing them way out of proportion, then comparing this distorted image to the image of an imaginary world where "everybody would have what they needed and wanted, even if they literally possessed nothing", as if you can just wave your hand and make that world appear and work.

By the way, you're completing wrong in asserting there's enough resources to make everybody live comfortably. Current world GDP is about 70 trillion, with about 7 billion living on the planet. Even if you could just split that up evenly somehow without destroying current output (you can't) that would be only 10,000 GDP per capita, aka poor. In the most idealistic scenario possible, your system would make EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet live below the threshold the west defines as "poverty". Congratulations. You just impoverished an entire planet.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Just wow. Where to start?

Literally everything you just said is demonstrably false. In the process of destroying the capitalist system, you also destroy the incredibly efficient productive output it generates. Why was the Soviet Union barely able to feed its people, despite being the most resource rich nation on earth? Because the lack of a price system, the central direction of the economy, led to massive waste and inefficient production. You're assuming we can maintain, or even increase, current worldwide production levels after dismantling the current economic system. That's simply not true.
You're assuming peoplecan'tbe productive without an economic system. That's simply not true.

By the way, in the western world, there really are no haves and have nots. There are "have tons" and "have a little's". The level we take for the standard of poverty in the west is miles ahead of the average standard of living in the non-capitalist world.
This is a shit argument every time it's mentioned. "Yeah, a lot of your lives are shit, but hey! At least you're not starving Ethiopians so we gotta be doing something right!"

Capitalism is not forcing us to be wasteful with resources. Capitalism is the least resource-wasteful system we've ever devised. When all property is private, the owner of the property has ever incentive to maintain it, to use it as efficiently as he can, and not to waste it. When property is publicly owned, the benefit from using it is concentrated, but the cost is diffused. If you want to see what happens to natural resources when they're owned by the community, go read about the Aral Sea.
Capitalism is ABSOLUTELY forcing us to be wasteful with our resources. We are guzzling oil as fast as we possibly can because there's money do be made, non-renewable highly polluting resource or not. We're wasting more water in the production of a bottle of water than is actually contained in the bottle. We're razing forests and destroying ecosystems because if we don't, someone else will and we gotta make that profit NOW. In these cases (and many, many more), the irresponsible use of, destruction of, and pollution of our resources is considered acceptable because it leads to profit. To say Capitalism is not forcing us to be wasteful is ridiculous.

Your perspective is so skewed it blows my mind. I'm not trying to say there aren't legitimate problems with Capitalism, but there are also MASSIVE benefits, and when comparing it to another proposed system you need to look at both sides. You're completing ignoring all the good things it provides and railing against every negative thing you can find, often blowing them way out of proportion, then comparing this distorted image to the image of an imaginary world where "everybody would have what they needed and wanted, even if they literally possessed nothing", as if you can just wave your hand and make that world appear and work.
I'm not ignoring anything. I have openly and repeatedly acknowledged that Capitalism did a lot of great things for humanity. But we can't assume that because it's our best system yet that it's the best system period. In fact, I'm sure both you and Lithose could probably agree with that. It seems we just disagree with when and how a new system could be implemented. Can you propose a scenario that doesn't involve complete financial collapse? I can, but it involves people realizing that they have been conditioned and rejecting that conditioning. And unlike most people I've met in my life, I don't assume the worst in people and that they are all idiots, like everyone seems to do when we talk about a non-capitalist society.

By the way, you're completing wrong in asserting there's enough resources to make everybody live comfortably. Current world GDP is about 70 trillion, with about 7 billion living on the planet. Even if you could just split that up evenly somehow without destroying current output (you can't) that would be only 10,000 GDP per capita, aka poor. In the most idealistic scenario possible, your system would make EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet live below the threshold the west defines as "poverty". Congratulations. You just impoverished an entire planet.
I said resources, not money. Fuck money. The whole point of everything I'm telling you is that we don't need it. We did need it before. It solved many huge problems. Now that those problems have been solved and we've advanced our species exponentially in terms of knowledge and technology, we need to use this knowledge and technology to fix the new problems that have been caused... by money. It's all part of the continual evolution of our species. There is enough food and material for clothing and shelter for everyone on the planet several times over. This is not debatable. We don't need politicians. We don't need CEOs. We need science and technology (Oh shit! We already have those!) and the willingness to discard our preconceived (and heavily shaped by our environment) notions of "the way things are".

If everybody who thinks they understand "the way things are" would realize that the concept is ENTIRELY shaped by our environment, you'd never hear the phrase again.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
I said resources, not money. Fuck money. The whole point of everything I'm telling you is that we don't need it. We did need it before. It solved many huge problems. Now that those problems have been solved and we've advanced our species exponentially in terms of knowledge and technology, we need to use this knowledge and technology to fix the new problems that have been caused... by money. It's all part of the continual evolution of our species. There is enough food and material for clothing and shelter for everyone on the planet several times over. This is not debatable. We don't need politicians. We don't need CEOs. We need science and technology (Oh shit! We already have those!) and the willingness to discard our preconceived (and heavily shaped by our environment) notions of "the way things are".

If everybody who thinks they understand "the way things are" would realize that the concept is ENTIRELY shaped by our environment, you'd never hear the phrase again.
let's ignore the fact that the creation of money is tied to economically integrated assets and services.

Some resources are relatively scarce like helium, you can't allow everybody an infinite supply of helium because we'd run out, how do you plan to limit the finite resource of helium so the planet doesn't lose that resource. Eventually WITHOUT creating some kind of resource counter, say helium credits or some shit, that would literally function as money except it's now some lesser barter version of money, or do you plan to outright ban people from consumption of helium, or do you plan on birth to assign a fraction of helium to every person born that they can extract in their lifetime? Now how about industry let's say industry wants to create the iphone 27 and it takes alot of helium to produce it for some reason, but they can't because equitable access to resources would prevent enough available, what then?

all possible solutions boil down to a version of money or to play favorites and restrict one class of people in favor of another.


And hence we come to the root cause of conflict, the claiming and distribution of finite resources between conflicting parties and often growing populations.
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
By the way, you're completing wrong in asserting there's enough resources to make everybody live comfortably. Current world GDP is about 70 trillion, with about 7 billion living on the planet. Even if you could just split that up evenly somehow without destroying current output (you can't) that would be only 10,000 GDP per capita, aka poor. In the most idealistic scenario possible, your system would make EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet live below the threshold the west defines as "poverty". Congratulations. You just impoverished an entire planet.
don't forget. by spreading the wealth, you will radically increase the consumption and...yeah. -_-

life is good.

there is this one story about commercialization of water in Ontario, Canada. Many forget that water used to be free. I mean, it was for the public. But because it was free, everyone was using as much as they want. After the commercialization, the consumption was radically reduced.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
let's ignore the fact that the creation of money is tied to economically integrated assets and services.

Some resources are relatively scarce like helium, you can't allow everybody an infinite supply of helium because we'd run out, how do you plan to limit the finite resource of helium so the planet doesn't lose that resource. Eventually WITHOUT creating some kind of resource counter, say helium credits or some shit, that would literally function as money except it's now some lesser barter version of money, or do you plan to outright ban people from consumption of helium, or do you plan on birth to assign a fraction of helium to every person born that they can extract in their lifetime? Now how about industry let's say industry wants to create the iphone 27 and it takes alot of helium to produce it for some reason, but they can't because equitable access to resources would prevent enough available, what then?

all possible solutions boil down to a version of money or to play favorites and restrict one class of people in favor of another.


And hence we come to the root cause of conflict, the claiming and distribution of finite resources between conflicting parties and often growing populations.
You're not getting it. What do we need helium for? Out of all the potential uses, which ones do we have a (more plentiful or renewable) alternative for? Of the uses that absolutely need helium, how much reasonable demand would there be for that? Can we find an alternative way to fulfill that same need without helium? Nobody's going to say "I want helium!" for the sake of having helium. When you put minds to solving these problems without the end goal being "to make as much profit as possible" you get amazing results.

Our most limited resources will be put to the best use they can to improve the quality of life for the greatest number of people. This can be objectively determined through scientific analysis and can be further refined as those who choose to study resource consumption get new ideas (which would then be considered by other experts who work together to get the best possible result instead of competing against each other for a bigger piece of the pie). I'm not suggesting providing an infinite supply of anything to anyone because that's retarded. But a lot of worries about limited resources would become moot once we use science and technology to figure out alternatives. Unlike with Capitalism, where we're actively burning through as many non-renewable resources as we possibly can. You're going to tell me what we're doing now is more responsible?

Take oil. We remain super-dependent on it even though we cannot produce more of it and it will certainly run out at some point. Is it because we have no choice? Fuck no! It's because there's too much money in it. We don't need oil to power vehicles or provide heat for homes or even produce plastic. There are less harmful, less wasteful and more responsible alternatives for all these uses of oil. The chances of society taking a huge punch to the gut once oil runs out are far higher under Capitalism than they would be under the Venus Project, so don't tell me money is balancing out resource consumption.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,496
149,854
maybe you should explain it to him using bleach as a valuable resource
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
I don't have any illusions that you will listen to any of this but you should read less Marx and more economic textbooks. You can't just "wish away" the value of things. Even if you took away money, you wouldn't end up with all things being equal. We use oil because it is easier to use than other alternatives, not because money somehow forces us to use oil.
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
I wanted to respond more in depth because its just so pie in the sky it hurts my brain.

You're not getting it. What do we need helium for? Out of all the potential uses, which ones do we have a (more plentiful or renewable) alternative for? Of the uses that absolutely need helium, how much reasonable demand would there be for that? Can we find an alternative way to fulfill that same need without helium? Nobody's going to say "I want helium!" for the sake of having helium. When you put minds to solving these problems without the end goal being "to make as much profit as possible" you get amazing results.
What do you mean, nobody says "I want helium" for the sake of having it? People do that shit all the time with resources. Hell, inventors might want it to try and create some things. Many people would want it to sound funny, etc. How do you go about determining who should get what? Surely you don't want some pie in the sky technocracy to determine it, that has failed everytime we have tried it. Surely not!


Our most limited resources will be put to the best use they can to improve the quality of life for the greatest number of people. This can be objectively determined through scientific analysis and can be further refined as those who choose to study resource consumption get new ideas (which would then be considered by other experts who work together to get the best possible result instead of competing against each other for a bigger piece of the pie). I'm not suggesting providing an infinite supply of anything to anyone because that's retarded. But a lot of worries about limited resources would become moot once we use science and technology to figure out alternatives.
Man, I love science and scientists but you are actually advocating a technocracy dictatorship. Unreal. "Once we use science and technology to figure out alternatives". We are ALREADY DOING THAT, what you are essentially advocating is something entirely different.

Take oil. We remain super-dependent on it even though we cannot produce more of it and it will certainly run out at some point. Is it because we have no choice? Fuck no! It's because there's too much money in it. We don't need oil to power vehicles or provide heat for homes or even produce plastic. There are less harmful, less wasteful and more responsible alternatives for all these uses of oil. The chances of society taking a huge punch to the gut once oil runs out are far higher under Capitalism than they would be under the Venus Project, so don't tell me money is balancing out resource consumption.
Venus Project, uggh. Again, we use oil because it takes far less RESOURCES to use it than other alternatives. You can wish away cash, you can't wish away actual value. People want varying amounts of resources, capitalism and price give us a way, albeit unfairly in many cases, to allocate the resources. You want to live in some world where everything is the same value and people can just ask for whatever they want. That never works, hasn't worked and won't work with current humans.

Essentially, none of your ideas work until we reach some technological singularity.