" i recognize that the capitalistic system within the united states and other western countries does promote a lifestyle within the population but additionally it seeks to exploit methods of producing what it also promotes demand for in the 1st world by any means necessary including VAST investment into deforestation agriculture."
US and Western/Central Europe are the First World. The idea that the US is causing deforestation in Brazil to produce food that the First World has in excess is absurd

There is less demand in the US for food than there is food. Production of food per person is ludicrous compared to what it was even 100 years ago

We're multiple orders of magnitude more efficient now than we ever were

theres HUGE potential demand in other countrys around the world that the world market that investors are investing into are hoping to unlock with exports from various sources (including sources that burn the most important forest in the world down in order to maintain increased production) and also simply giving it away to subsidized gowning economys that could potentially become paying consumers

Fun fact. Many western medical companies are big investors in south american cattle and pork raising. The reason a lot of the base hormones used in drug production are produced in cattles and pigs glands

Sorry if I come off as know-it-all smart ass

That makes a lot more sense than food production

the north american market is running out of ways to increase profitability domesticly and investment into international markets means increased profits for american investors which is a way for the american economy to contenue growth because investment means money going back to the investor and if the investor is american its money in america but this also means that that production has to go somewhere which @Beemann you bring up with the question of overproduction because YES we overproduce, the way we deal with that problem is that we basicly do ANYTHING we can think of to get rid of our overproduction and even then we often waste around 40% of it, yet consumption of products is still rising and so is production, what we have done is either finding ways to get developed markets to consume more either by the people themselves actually consuming more of it or by getting the population to increase (though that doesent work well in 1st world countries). the other methods we have is simply getting those foreign producers to export abroad and trying to open up new markets for consumption, any way to get more people to demand for products is acceptible, and lastly we do just donate a lot of that which earns good boy points nationally and internationally

the core principle of the market that the united states and eu have is profits must always increase, and they cant increase without consumption of production or reducing the cost of production, we do ANYTHING we can get away with in order to maintain this

So what's the issue with selling to other nations that underproduce? Brazil sells to China, China then focuses their efforts on not-soy, and makes those products cheaper

burning the most important forest in the world to the ground

also increasing methane production

and soil erosion

Well if you're in China you can stop buying soy

Another reason for US meat producers to invest in other places is the EU and other countries ban on American beef, due to the use of estrogen (estradiol beta-2) growth hormones. The EU cap its import of US beef to 1000 metric tons. The new trump deal with EU increases this to 10.000 tons. All must of course be tested and certified to verify it is hormone free

also selling to other nations that underproduce kills any chance of that country ever producing

and underproduction is subjective

Underproduction is based purely on demand, and no nation can produce everything its citizenry could possibly want while making a profit

it is not that these countrys dont produce enough to maintain the survival of their people, its that these nations dont produce enough to maintain a consumption that is more extreme for the individual person and good enough to satisfy the needs of the international market

I wasn't aware that we were meant to go back to subsistence based living

there is a false equivilency that the way you live is completely relitive to every other benefit of the society you live in, technologicaly, socially, and infastructurally. the way people live now is fucking horrible for them regardless of what position they are in the tax bracket. our health is no longer maintained by our choices but insted the accessability of technology that will force us to stay alive to a certain age if we will it to.

The reason that is the production disparities and why I am a free trader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-xLUS5JGIM this short vid explains that concept in 5min.
The important thing about economic models is to note the always assume no barriers. The phrase “everything being equal” wich in most cases it is not

the united states and europe are examples of sociatys with an economic system that NEEDs increased profitibility at any excuse

Your health is still maintained by your choices. If you decide to eat like shit and be a landmass-kin, you will still die young. If you take care of yourself you will be better for longer

for a long time our method was to promote increased consumption by the american citizine

were reaching the limit to how that can contenue to be sustainible

well the limit to which that can drive profitibility

Pretty sure soy and beef are related, though. A lot of the soy produced goes toward feeding cattle. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-brazil-nuts-are-helping-protect-the-amazon-rainforest

so were going to promote that in other countrys and exploit more landmass to the ability to meet a demand for that which we promote so that we can maintain increased profits

and politically we will undermine any opposition

we've got to have money

i just wonder if were ever going to get to a point where people shame others for not being fat

because if you arnt fat you are an enemy to our economy

though that will probably be situational, some occupations demand fitness and those occupations are manditory for the economic system to maintain itself so we may never increase or decrease our current obesity

though we could have pushes to be fitfat, fat people who exercize more in order to be able to consume more

Fund fact I learned a couple of years ago. I dont know if it is still true.
For every 12 month
China brings online 100 coal fired power plant
1 million Chinese starts using toilet paper for the first time
600.000 chinese starts eating meat at least once a week

its the american dream

If you're not fat then you're a threat to the food and health care industries.

Millenials are apparently ruining most traditional industries :^)

dont yeet the meat

Domestic meat > soy

>TFW by living in a lumber exporting country and not eating soy you're preserving the rainforest

well i will say that meat is probably still better for you than soy, soy is really messed up

Meat is great

honestly eating less is really where its at

I'm giving some thought to switching to grass-fed meat.

Less is relative

Eat the correct amount for a healthy weight and make sure you're getting the right stuff

Hunt your own meat

or if you want to get crazy, maintaining your consumption with your exertion

I hear good things about elk

its all bad for the economy though so dont do it

There are industries built around health too

If you were gonna try to fuck the economy overall you'd have a hard time

Unless you went innawoods

It's a sad day when Asians, who've traditionally enjoyed some of the best health, think following the Standard American Diet is a good idea.

maybe the future wont be so bad after all, just need to consume the right industrys and let the economy adjust

There might not be a better example of the broken-window fallacy than eating yourself to death to prop up the US economy.

its not really something that people contiously consiter but it is how the economy is built and requires of them to behave

many european countries as well

You're looking at this too top-down. People are naturally drawn to fat salt and sugar, so selling them that makes more money more reliably

That's true, a lot of people don't realize how intentionally the food industry is trying to kill us.

That's the opposite of what I just said lol

I was replying to Arch-Fiend.

Bitches just wanna have a thriving business, and if selling you corn infused candy gets them there, they'll do it

Ultimately you decide what to buy and how often

let the free market do whats best for the free market and whatever happens happens except for all the times it also lobbys various governments to de-incentivize other ways of living, creates a market place were more individualistic economies can no longer compete and ruins the environment in order to maintain its unsustainable need for growth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

should ask how easy it is for someone to legally feed a family by hunting in the united states

It's not a free market lol

its just the manifestation of a market where the best at controling it gain control of it and will never let go while selling you the promise that giving them more freedom or giving them more restrictions will make the market more healthy while all it really does is secure their domination over it

what do you expect in a world where a man has little he can do but become one of a million in another man's schemes?

You seem really infatuated with that line

i came up with it on the toilet, i was proud

Being involved in someone's plan is ultimately meaningless. Any megalomaniac can come up with such a plan

hey thats what i think but the world clearly knows better

who am i to argue with that?

It's always the unhealthy stuff that seems to be subsidized.

I mean, where's the asparagus lobby? 😛

Or Big Broccoli, lol.

In Canada, dairy, poultry, eggs and grain are subsidized

and highly regulated as a monopoly

Of course, we hate monopolies, though.

When the state has a monopoly, though, we call it a social program and it's just great.

@Beemann define subsidized. Subsidized by the consumers dollar? All of these industries pay exhorbitant fees to the government in order to maintain market protection.

The meat and dairy industries greatly influence US governmental policy, from my understanding. Also, pharmaceutical companies.

http://theconversation.com/subsidies-for-healthy-foods-are-a-price-worth-paying-to-tackle-obesity-74726

What a joke. It shouldn't cost anyone more money to eat less crap.

They could just stop subsidizing the crap.

Supply management is an indirect subsidization scheme that heavily regulates the aforementioned products to control pricing and reduce foreign competition artificially @Joe_Limon

Indeed. I still think that subsidization is a misleading word for it. These industries subsidize the government with their regulatory payments. Indirect taxation. On par with the government profiting off of spectrum sales.

It's still ultimately an anticompetitive practice, which is the larger issue

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11702
See, don't think of this as "those nutty indoctrination centers" think of what the social justice crowd is doing: appropriating resources and funding it's advancement. They're also discussing how to advance their objectives and interests. Do those of use on the Free speech side do this? How do we push freedom of speech?

but it is like we need someone to rally people like SJWs do and to not make it about hate is really hard because look what they are doing ... @pratel

Yes, but organization is important. Ground game matters. Let's not pretend they haven't been successful. And the libertarian excuse of 'get woke go broke' hasn't yielded results in the 30 years this diversity stuff has been around. And losing more ground is losing in total.

There really needs to be a strategy discussion. Small things people can do to stem the tide and fight back. Hitting the problems at the from the top and from the bottom. Not just yielding turf and disengaging slowly one-by-one. There's strength in numbers and purpose in strategy, and this needs to be formulated and rallied.

like international movement for free speech?

@Undead Mockingbird how dare you... 😄

naturaal monopolies are ok, but only few non-natural monopolies make sense, very few

There was a very important thing that Thomas Sowell had mentioned:

Not all markets that are occupied by a single supplier are monopolies.,

The important distinction is whether their presence keeps others out of the market.

It's also not clear what percentage of a market must be cornered, or even what a market is.

If people can wear either sneakers or boots, are boots and sneakers the same market?

Or are there certain boots that cannot easily be substituted? More generally, if one product can be substituted with another, it's not always obvious who constitutes competition for you.

I deeply appreciate Sowell because he is very good at pointing out unintended consequences of public and economic policy.

Sowell is an American treasure. Greatest economist still alive probably, the man is too dangerous for media to still talk about him

doesn't get better than seeing those videos of young Sowell in his prime. Especially ones with Milton smiling at what he had created

I love how he fucked over that Feminist bitch back in 1980

They spoutet the same "wagegap" shit even then.

And Thomas debunked it! Violently and beautifully

milton?

did he study under him?

i know they were both at chicago

but i thought he had a different mentor

eh, not important

@Stefan Payne Yes, but it's also depressing how long this nonsense has been debunked now. We've been refuting this for 40 years or so.

Yes and our best black dude has given an awesome explanation.

...and Jordan seems to have found that....

and is parroting his statements

thing is: Jordan is more known than Thomas I think.

Eh, it's not hard to refute the wage gap.

I don't think Jordan needed to copy that.

And if he really channels Sowell, I don't mind.

If I can get rich in my retirement years by simply restating Sowell, please don't spoil it for me.

I just got a pocket constitution just to be that annoying prick

I recommend all US citizens get one, just for funzies

sounds like a good idea

@Timcast "Force rich people to reinvest in the economy." .... What exactly do you think wealthy people do with their money otherwise? Stuff it under the couch?

Monetary inflation incentivizes everyone to invest. Desire to increase wealth incentivizes people to invest.

Even if some didn't invest... so what? You could treat their lack of investment as monetary deflation meaning upward pressure on the value of the rest of the monetary supply.

the wealthy tend to just invest in new bussinesses in order to cause small investors to jump onto it after a recognizible name has joined and pressure the company into profitibility untill its breaking point where the big bussiness sells all their investment before it goes under leaving the small investors broke along with the company that just gets bought out by established bussinesses that have age and size in order to maintain their survival against investor pressure . so they dont really stuff it under their couch they just kinda feed off the lower classes by gambling

people that work and save get rich in america all the time.

So big investors are smarter than smaller ones? They can predict market success better? Selling their shares of a company means someone on the other side of that sale thinks it's worth buying.

You might as well blame the buyers for buying the share just as much as the seller trying to sell. It takes two.

And correct... people save and get wealthy regularly... but saving almost 100% of the time is investment. Money almost never sits idle. Even if it did... it'd just put upwards pressure on the value of the remaining money supply.

all ive told you is what happens, its your choice to have a problem with it or not

That's not what happens.

And it implies special knowledge or abilities in the wealthy which isn't explained.

the game is money, those who succeed are those who have the talents to succeed, then with those talents they use their money to compound their assets. talent, knowledge, and money are all power, those with power are those most likely to have power

that doesent really seem unexplained

the system as you describe it doesn't even seem altogether malicious

Saying "the rich are better" isn't really an explanation.

it even acknowledges the multinationals as mortal and vulnerable to failure

im not

im saying the better are rich

and really im only discribing a very select talent

people that are better with money tend to build up a lot of it

The rich is an ever changing demographic

heh

anyone who works in investment, not just someone who manages to put money on the right horse at the right time and live off a big gamble for the rest of their lives, i mean people who make their way to the top through spending real time investing, those people have something that gives them an edge beyond luck. it doesent matter where their talent and skill comes from, but it gives them the ability to survive within that system where no one without that talent and skill can. at this point very common trends have formed within it where the situation i discribed is a very very common occurence at the stock market

movies have been writen about this

they are fictional movies, not fantasy movies

the thing is that we're looking at it wrong: those who invest and continue to invest become richer. it's not necessarily that they're "better at the game" or not, it's that they're choosing to continue to play. investment is a form of saving, and once you get away from 0 enough to begin investing, you will begin to profit. I'm not saying it's instant or that it never fails, but if you take part in investment, you'll profit more the longer you take part. The "rich" demographic isn't a set group of people, it's constantly in flux as to who's where on the ladder.

@Timcast please stop saying people will meme cortez to the presidency trump can meme cortez can not

trump is a billionaire

cortez posts tits on insta like the whore she is

thats more or less the attitude that the left had in 2016

HC is a well spoken polite career politican who appeals to the masses and represents the future

Trump is a sputtering blathering fool who cant even run a business

yeah all of his dick pics were great

when he said stuff like we can build the wall with typos on bills it was great

if cortez is ever able to pack a stadium i might reconsider

atm the only thing shes done is give 4 chan some porn

so far

everyone makes fun of Elizabeth warren and the media and her base lap it up is she gonna be president?

no

trump has always had the bants cortez only has her boobs

So ignore Cortez. She is only a threat if we meme her into power, like trump

Yeah, she has a long time before she has a shot at Presidency.

and I doubt anyone will care about her then....

she's burning bright and hot and probably gone dark when she is old enough...

Stefen, I think you are wrong. Warren took that stupid DNA test not to prove Trump wrong but to get it over and done with before her run.
AOC is finding her place. Politics has changed since 2016 and will never be the same again. It's not just your 15 minutes of fame anymore if you play your cards right.
Until the Dems put up a 'Commie' and they realise how small amount of the pop agree will they learn.

No, I doubt it.
Because I expect AOC to say some appalling shit that really does not sit well with people and maybe they find some really "interesting stuff"...

She has no experience with politics, she makes enemys at every corner, even Pelosi and co. Has not much money either. So I expect her to fall hard, very hard.

She is young and it's her first appearance on the stage. She will be able to get away with all sorts of things for the next few years. Finding out that there are nudes out there is not going to hurt her. Saying something stupid is not going to hurt her. By the time 2028 comes around and she has stuck to politics she will be a well rounded fraud just like the rest of them.

Never ever underestimate your enemy. AOC is playing the game and getting exposure, she is not losing

i actually dont think things have changed as much as you might think, but what we have seen from the left and right in the united states is not something you often see at the same time. a lack of confadence in both by the center. old power structures in both sides of politics began showing their cracks relitively around the same time, the end of the line for the republicans being bush and the end for the dems was actually bill clinton however they managed to pull off obama by swallowing their pride and their plans just to maintain power for a little longer. in a state where attention is at an all time low in politics for a party, the party itself is fragmenting, and the heirarches are dying, the method for new blood to enter the race is through pure attention grabbing because theres potentially more untapped voters not even paying attention to the party at that point than there are voters within the party who are likely to side with you.

i think the dems see AOC as another obama but its actually to late for that now, she wont be elegible to be elected for a very long time and until she actually needs to be elected she has a lot of power due to her attention outside typical dem signals. her relivency by the time shes able to campaign is based purely on factors the dnc has no control over

they don't see her as another Obama because she isn't. not that I agree with her views at all

the dnc didint agree with obama's veiws either

DNC is never happy, like the mafia never being happy with the crumbs they get from extortion.

Arch, when I say things have changed I don't mean they have setteled yet. Bernie has been in politics for decades, sitting in the back room. He would be your President now if the DNC hadn't of fucked him over. By the time AOC is ready to run all the Trolling will be behind her.

they may not be happy but there is no way they dont see the writing on the wall. the people at the top of demicratic politics may allow pure insanity to exist within their platform but they arnt stupid, theyve puppet mastered their status quo for a very long time

they aren't stupid, no doubt in that

this is why they should be taken seriously

if the dnc hadent been the kind of organization to fuck sanders over then the world we live in would be a vastly different place to start with

and sanders goes to support them

pathetic, that's how you totally change someone's worldview. that's really fucked me in how I see everything in US politics

i think AOC has the potential to maintain relivence for a very long time unless someone steals that spotlight from her

i dont think its likely to fade

that's not up to us, it's up to media

i don't know about that

i have a feeling AOC could be dumped like a wet rag in a hurry.

dumped by who exactly?

media, dnc, public opinion

DNC has no problem playing war in their party, lmao.

she will be up for re-election before she can run for prez

if i remember

Every two years

it will be interesting is she keeps her position, particularly if she doesn't need to run around to keep it.

public opinion is the most important attention that AOC has. i think unless you have a revolution in media or a death of media, then media attention on AOC is assured. the DNC dumping her could destroy the dnc forever regardless of what retarded things she says, as long as she has the public opinion. the only thing the dnc can try to do is influince her to change her retoric and have her ruin herself by disenfranchizing her audience, but beyond that the DNC doesent have much power here, the media is doing anything it can to simply survive, they would love to not talk about trump, their obsession with trump isint purely ideological, if they had the option to talk about something better than trump, something that shown as brightly but on their side of politics youd never hear the names name mentioned again. the media is just a giant moth covered in chrome paint that goes seeking the brightest light. they shadowban small lights with a high degree of truth in them to prevent them from ever getting to big, but their survival is dependent on big lights nomatter what those lights represent and weather they like it or not they amplify the attention those lights get due to dancing around them

public exposure*

```it will be interesting is she keeps her position, particularly if she doesn't need to run around to keep it.```
Exactly!
And that might be the point where she will wither in irrelevancy...

Her only threat in her district is a primary. If she can survive her first reelection which will test if she can stick around beyond her "exploit" that'll tell us a lot. Her next test could be running for New York Governor or an open Senate seat if it comes up.

exactly

If she doesn't show appeal beyond her district it will be a much tougher win for her.

it will be interesting to see if the disengaged wake up to boot her

or support her

she needs to actually do something rather than exist i believe.

she is, she's playing young and radical youth archetype

she got to where she is by making a splash. that is not necessarily good. Some people like a splash, but not everyone.

There's a reason we haven't had a president with only House experience on third resume in a very long time.

that's enough in a horrid crypt like the DNC

predicting what public interest wants from her is probably the best bet for predicting her survival of relivence

no, the DNC likes money

they suck with it so they constantly need more

i agree with tim that the right wing media highlighting cortez constantly is press for her

that kinda thing doesent just get new eyes on her, it also turns eyes that rather not vote for her onto her as an opposition canadate. if the nazis dont like her she has to be good, even if i dont agree with her

you dont want to see AOC getting the same voter base hillery got AND a fresh new voter base due to being a progressive that new minds are interested in

or maybe you do, who knows how bad she really is for politics right now

assume the worst

that's how wars are won

problem is a subjective perspective on worst

no, wars are won by lying to everyone

person with the best lie wins

well yeah, lying is just human nature unfortunately

there are not many wars in which the nations involved did not get involved because of lies to their populations

the public, generally, HATES war. without their support, you are not likely to win

well that should go without saying..

and, you need the enemy to think you are doing something you are not

people are want to hear things that make them happy, more than they want the truth

its not what people want to hear, its what will make them fearful

happy people don't want war.

fearful people want someone to make the big bad monster go away

they will put themselves in cages to do it

and that's why they are so desperate for anything that is spun to their warped worldview

look how many want war in syria now that trump is pulling out. they are totally out of it

humans are not rational, it's not about good or bad. just how it is

fear: "they will all be genocided!"

you gotta spin in the positive too for full effect, you want them hungry after the sample 😉

as a socialist, i prefer them hungry for food

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/corp-taxes-and-federal-budget/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/?utm_term=.9fbef9ad3de1
https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

Aoc didnt win anything

She got like .005% of her district to vote for her in a primary and since democrats are lemmings on welfare paid to vote she won

And the media loves her...

...for now

The media loved hillary

Glad shes in the whitehouse

Oh wait....

hehe, yeah ^^

The right memed her too

I think time just wants people to stop meming her cuz she shows where left leaning ideas end up