Unrestrained And Immoral Capitalism At The Level Of Greed And Pursuit Of Profit That Kills The Underlying

An observation hiking, Out and about a couple days ago.

Not all that unusual of a sight, except that was in Wisconsin on January 17th (above the 45th parallel) , the temperature was 34F. The only time the temperature was above 27F in the previous nine days and every day since. That little guy should be hibernating this whole time. ! Today started out at -3F. It’s COLD.

A couple of not seen so many times at all. Indigo Bunting and Redheaded woodpecker pairs.

Birds and sunshine can make happy and appreciate life more. 🤩

Capitalism is not equitable or sustainable. Unending pursuit of ‘profit’ ( or any other single minded objective ) at the cost of subjugating and exploiting the people doing the work to produce said ‘profit’ —— never ends as well as you think.

How long can an extreme ultra-capitalist nation survive without becoming an authoritarian dystopia?

I’ve been pondering that today, but it’s occurred to me that it’s worth noting this extremist capitalist society called the United States did start out as an authoritarian dystopia.

I had originally typed “for a massive number of people living within it” to the end of the sentence above, but I’ve erased it because that’s what all dystopias are. They are never horrific dictatorships to everyone. There is always an in-group that lives in relative comfort with relative freedom that simply does not consider the suffering of others to be relevant to their lives.

The US was built by a wealthy merchant class to be that dystopia where those merchants and landowners were the in-group, replacing the king and his appointees. The country shifted toward freedom for all, toward democracy over time, not away from it. The right to vote was first held only by male landowners of the upper class, it was not designed to be egalitarian for all. The notion that it was ever meant to be for all people is a lie we tell ourselves so we can feel special about our country’s founding, but it’s still a lie, and it’s a dangerous one.

Accepting this history, and considering it, changes the question. It becomes:

How long can an extreme ultra-capitalist nation survive without returning to an authoritarian dystopia?

That’s a more tangible premise to consider. It shifts the argument from an inevitable economic condition in the hands of capital, to a political one in the hands of people. Extreme capitalist oligarchy has always been in direct opposition to full democracy, because under democracy, capital’s power can be overruled by the will of the people. When the needs of the people cannot override the interests of wealth, then democracy is no longer functioning; an oligarchy has control. Maintaining that control in the face of increasing hardship for people inevitably requires more power. This premise leads us to look at how oligarchy may strengthen its grip.

We can look right now and see precisely which elected politicians are arguing that the US is not (and should not be) a democracy, but a republic. We can see exactly who is arguing for a return to constitutional principles, while suggesting we suspend the Constitution. We can see exactly who preaches “Law & Order” while ignoring the law. We can see exactly who claims that some votes should count more than others, and that their candidate is “the real winner.” We can also listen and learn exactly who is paying them to do that. We can then gauge their support and the support for their ideas to see how much time we have left before we empower people to undo the past century of incomplete social progress.

An oddity of today is that the US is hurtling in two directions at once. One is toward a more empowered people, with unions rising, differences celebrated and enjoyed, and a support for struggling individuals. The other is accelerating wealth inequality, indifference to suffering, and desperation driving down wages while increasing profits. Both are happening, both are accelerating. That’s not sustainable.

The highly dedicated people pushing hard in both of those directions often see the other side as a destabilizing anti-American force, determined to upend whatever greatness we have. And they’re both right about that, it’s just that one sees America as a fully-formed sacred ideal that’s been lost, and the other sees it as a process for building a more perfect Union. This is the divide that the nation was born with, and the same divide that led to the Civil War.

I’m not shy about which side I’m on. We have to keep pushing for stronger democracy and a happier people.

The other side, the one that sees America as built by prophets, that wants to ban history so their prophets won’t be questioned, that unrealistically imagines themselves to be the in-group the founders intended, will return us to their authoritarian dystopia. That is where all of their arguments originate, and where all of their arguments lead.

That’s why MAGA uses the word “again.” They mean to return us to a time they thought was great, where the in-group was clear and life was miserable for everyone else, because they genuinely believe they’ll be the new in-group. They won’t, they all can’t, but they will take us there quickly as soon as they can.

When the mace

Doesn’t smash your face

That’s amoreè

Now if ever asked, I did not EVER engage in ANY type of similar behaviors ! However I can understand, this time of year my feet do get cold.

Being fully naked feels less naked than being naked with shoes on.

Important. Please understand how your own government actually works people.

Common Dreams

PBS Mirrored GOP Lies on Social Security and the Debt

National news media often broadcast misinformation when discussing the debt of the United States government, erroneously targeting Social Se

By Frederick H. Decker

Common Dreams

Nov. 29, 2023

National news media often broadcast misinformation when discussing the debt of the United States government, erroneously targeting Social Security as the main culprit whether intentionally or from genuine ignorance.

The coverage of the federal debt by news media generally considered credible often mirrors, unfortunately, the falsehoods heard from Republican lawmakers in blaming Social Security as a major driver of the federal debt. Such misleading news coverage was embedded in a recent segment aired during the week of Thanksgiving on the PBS NewsHour, which is an hour I watch regularly to typically be informed by sound journalism. But in the segment at issue here, I witnessed misinformation broadcast to the public that could shape public opinion into thinking, quite erroneously, that Social Security needs gutting because it is the culprit increasing the federal debt. It isn’t.

This particular segment on the federal debt on PBS NewsHour was introduced on Tuesday November 21 by coanchor Amna Nawaz stating how the “U.S. government remains open this Thanksgiving week, thanks to a temporary funding deal Congress passed last week.” But when that temporary funding starts expiring in January, Nawaz added, “conservatives are signaling they won’t pass another funding deal without addressing a bigger issue, the swelling U.S. national debt.”

Then coanchor Geoff Bennett and correspondent Lisa Desjardins, standing before a screen with varying charts, discussed the growing interest paid on the federal debt. As Desjardins put it, “just the interest on our debt is so large [in the past year] that it is almost [the size of} the entire Department of Defense budget.” That statement may be true, but that was not the punchline of the segment.

Social Security hasn’t reduced available general revenue nor been the reason why politicians are not funding programs for younger constituencies.

The NewsHour segment ended mirroring the Republican Party’s mantra that Social Security is the major driver of the federal debt. As Desjardins concluded “the three largest drivers of the debt are in reality” Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt, with each in the chart displayed indicated as accounting respectively for 21.2%, 12.9%, and 10.5% of total federal expenditures. Desjardins added, “Really what’s happening here is Congress is not addressing the big drivers of the debt at all.”

In a recent piece with misinformation embedded in its title alone, “Why We’re Borrowing to Fund the Elderly While Neglecting Everyone Else,” columnist Catherine Rampell also implied that borrowing to fund Social Security benefits will, as she wrote, “continue to crowd out future spending obligations in years ahead” on programs for the young like “pre-K, or child care, or paid parental leave, or a more generous child tax credit.”

One problem in such depictions exemplified by the NewsHour and in Rampell’s article is that Social Security, specifically, is funded almost exclusively by its own revenue source. Not by borrowing, as Ms. Rampell implies without providing supportive evidence for that contention (because there isn’t any). Nor funded by general revenue as likely many believe when seeing typical charts on federal spending (like that shown in the segment aired on PBS NewsHour) that include Social Security expenditures, which are not at all funded by general revenue but, rather, by its separate targeted payroll and income taxes.

Actually, as I have written about previously, Social Security is today the entity owning the most debt, $2.7 trillion in Treasury securities (Monthly Treasury Report, Table 6, Schedule D as of October 31, 2023). More than the two foreign governments owning the most U.S. debt, Japan today owning U.S. securities valuing $1.1 trillion and China with under $1 trillion.

Surpluses in Social Security revenue by law have to be invested in U.S. securities. And revenue surpluses have over the years been the norm in the program. Thus, Social Security for years, in essence, funded the debt with its surplus revenue, not caused it.

Social Security hasn’t reduced available general revenue nor been the reason why politicians are not funding programs for younger constituencies as Ms. Rampell alludes to in her piece. Tax cuts during the Trump and Bush administrations, however, did help do that. Growth in deficits and debt, as analysis by the Center for American Progress indicates, has largely been driven by those tax cuts. Tax cuts reducing general revenue applicable to programs like the earlier expanded child tax credit that, before expiring, lifted more children out of poverty.

The Social Security program has nevertheless, according to reports by the Board of Trustees overseeing the program, recently incurred shortfalls in its dedicated revenue stream. In 2022, a 4% shortfall noted in the trustees’ current report (Table II.B1, page 7). And those recent shortfalls have been met simply by just cashing in some U.S. securities the program acquired over the years with revenue surpluses.

But true enough, within current parameters of the program, the trustees predict the program’s reserves (i.e., securities) will be depleted by 2033. Then relying solely on Social Security’s separate tax revenue, it is predicted only 77% of benefits due will be payable. That’s not being totally broke, but it would have an adverse effect on the income many elderly depend upon.

Raising the Social Security retirement age to purportedly reduce costs also has adverse effects that, as I discussed earlier, the Congressional Research Service among others have outlined. For one, among those of lesser means who also on average have lower life expectancies, increasing the retirement age would reduce their lifetime Social Security benefits collected disproportionately relative to reductions among higher income earners with typically longer life expectancies. Increasing the retirement age would, furthermore, disproportionately harm those retiring early due to work-related health impairment suffered most prevalently in blue-collar occupations.

A different option some propose to increase revenue is eliminating the cap on the income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. In 2024 the limit on income taxed will be $168,600. Income above that limit would not currently be taxed.

However Social Security is made solvent for the future, one thing is quite clear. Social Security has not been the reason for incurred and increasing U.S. debt.

ABSOLUTELY

Reblog if you think public libraries are important and should be maintained.

Oh you mean publicly funded child grooming centers?

The scary thing. The really scary thing is there are millions of people who believe that that is exactly what libraries are.

But let me turn that on it’s head, and embrace it. They are child grooming centers. Because they are a place where children can be groomed not to learn what to read and what not to read, but to read. Groomed not to learn what to think and what not to think, but to think. Groomed not to learn what to believe and what not to believe, but to question. Groomed not to condone or condemn the ideas, believes, and lifestyles of other people, but to understand they exist.

Because once a child learns to read, think, question, and understand they can grow to become a dangerously intelligent and formidable adult. And if there is one thing that scares the shit out of governments and institutions it is exactly what this nation needs more of; dangerously intelligent and formidable adults.

And on a personal note, if you think libraries are places where kids go to get groomed to be molested, become drag queens, gay, communists, fornicators, or God knows what else your Jack in the Box fucked up mind can come up with, you’re kinda a dipshit. And you clearly don’t spend much, if any, time in public libraries.

Whole hearted agreement with that sentiment @oni-with-an-iron-club..

Significantly over 60 years. There’s probably at least one more, Hopefully I’m wiser now and it will be in an entirely new setting. Almost looking forward to it. Top five life challenge. Anybody up for that. ?

Capitalism and Consumerism are destroying this planet 🌍 [IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE ]. It is also the end of us as a dominant species.

Oh my god I'm sooooo mad right now

So. I have no business telling people not to collect wild plants/materials.

I do it all the time.

However.

The words "wildcrafted," and "foraged," even "sustainably harvested," are terrifying to see in an ad on Etsy or Instagram

There is a such thing as the honorable harvest where you ASK the plant if it is okay to take, with the intention of listening if the answer is NO. Robin Wall Kimmerer talked about this, She did not make it up, it is an ancient and basic guideline of treating the plants with respect.

Basically it is not wrong to use plants and other living things, even if this means taking their life. But you are not the main character. You have to reflect on your knowledge of the organism's life cycle and its role in the ecosystem, so you can know you are not damaging the ecosystem. You have to only take what you need and avoid depleting the population.

Mary Siisip Geniusz also talked about it in an enlightening way in her book Plants Have So Much to Give Us, All We Have To Do is Ask. She gave an example of a woman who was on an island and needed to use a medicinal herb to heal her injured leg or she would not survive the winter. In that situation she had to use up all of the plant that was on the island. This was permissible, even though it eliminated the local population, because she had to do it to save her life. But in return the woman had the responsibility to later return to the island and plant seeds of that plant.

And what makes me absolutely furious, is that there are a bunch of people online who have vaguely copied this philosophy of sustainability in a false and insulting way, saying "wildcrafted" or "foraged" materials to be all trendy and cool and in touch with nature, when it is actually just poaching.

If you are from a capitalistic culture the honorable harvest is very hard and unintuitive to learn to practice. I am not very good at it still. This is why it is suspicious if someone is confident that they can ethically and respectfully harvest wild materials with money involved.

So there's this lichen that is often called "reindeer moss." It looks like this:

It grows only a few millimeters a year.

This is "preserved" reindeer moss.

It is from Etsy, similar is also sold in many other online shops, many of which have the audacity to describe it as a "plant" for decorations and terrariums that needs no maintenance.

It is not maintenance-free, it is dead. It has been spray-painted a horrible shade of green. The people buying it clearly don't even know what it is. It is a popular crafting material for "fairy houses," whatever the hell those are. So is moss, also dead, spray-painted, and wild-harvested. Supposedly reindeer moss is harvested sustainably in Finland, where it is abundant, for the craft industry. However poaching of lichens and mosses is absolutely rampant.

It's even more upsetting because there's hardly any articles drawing attention to the problem. This one is from 1999. And the poaching is still going on.

There is a "moss" section on Etsy, and it is so upsetting

These mosses and lichens were collected from the wild. Most of the shops are in the Pacific Northwest or Appalachia, which are the major locations of moss and lichen poaching. There are some shops based in Appalachia selling "foraged" reindeer moss.

Reindeer moss may be abundant in Finland, but in Appalachia it should NOT be harvested to be sold on Etsy as craft supplies! Moss doesn't grow quickly. Big, healthy colonies like this took years to grow. Some of these shops have thousands of sales, all of bags and bags of moss and lichen, and thinking of how much moss and lichen that must be, I am filled with horror.

Clubmosses do not transplant well, and these ones have no roots. The buyers do not realize they have bought a dead plant because clubmoss stays green and pliable after it is dead.

This is especially awful because in Mary Siisip Geniusz's book she talked about clubmosses being poached so much for Christmas wreaths that they had almost disappeared from a lot of forests.

I don't even know if this is illegal if it's not a formally endangered species so I don't know if I can report them I'm just. really sad and angry

Just some interesting frost patterns. Yes my windows in early May. That’s weather.