so, i turned the fan off when he got home this evening, to give him, or his guests, a chance to not smoke.
and, as of about 23:30, i can smell him, or somebody around here, smoking and have turned it back on.
i will acknowledge that it may partly be a consequence of the air conditioning. but, i've never seen anybody outside smoking.
all i know is that it was fine in here until he got home, and now i can smell it, since he's come in. whether he's smoking inside with the windows shut, or doing something else that lets bad air in is secondary to me. my concern is in mitigating the problem.
Saturday, August 24, 2019
ok.
i'm done.
let's hope i can get through most of this, tonight.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/sep/13/trickle-up-economics-drowns-middle-class/
i'm done.
let's hope i can get through most of this, tonight.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/sep/13/trickle-up-economics-drowns-middle-class/
at
23:23
and, the way that andrew yang is using the term is just more evidence that he has no understanding of what he's talking about.
at
22:58
investing in people is a good idea.
but, then, you don't want it to trickle back up. that's what you're trying to reverse.
but, then, you don't want it to trickle back up. that's what you're trying to reverse.
at
22:18
worse, the term, as these kids are trying to use it, doesn't actually make any sense.
"trickle-up" implies that money is moving from the lower classes to the upper classes. that's what up means, in context: from the bottom to the top. and, that's how people like stiglitz used it going back to the 90s, at least. it doesn't imply that the money is being invested, or being better distributed amongst different people. if you want to use the stream or spring analogy in context, the right idea that you're trying to get across would be something more like an "irrigation economy".
what they've done is just take some language they don't like, and reversed it in a way that makes no actual linguistic sense.
...because the truth is that they're not very intelligent people.
"trickle-up" implies that money is moving from the lower classes to the upper classes. that's what up means, in context: from the bottom to the top. and, that's how people like stiglitz used it going back to the 90s, at least. it doesn't imply that the money is being invested, or being better distributed amongst different people. if you want to use the stream or spring analogy in context, the right idea that you're trying to get across would be something more like an "irrigation economy".
what they've done is just take some language they don't like, and reversed it in a way that makes no actual linguistic sense.
...because the truth is that they're not very intelligent people.
at
22:17
i bet they thought they were being clever, though. they really did.
unfortunately, all they've done is demonstrate that they've never read anything about economics in their short lives.
they can fix that. but, they need to actually do it.
unfortunately, all they've done is demonstrate that they've never read anything about economics in their short lives.
they can fix that. but, they need to actually do it.
at
22:08
and, i apologize if i used the term "trickle-up" in a way that was confusing to people, but you can't just walk into a conversation and start redefining terms, as some of the younger commentators are trying to do. you're merely showing your ignorance.
"trickle-up economics" is in fact a very old and understood term on the left, as re-articulated from the previously deployed term "trickle-down economics", that refers to the movement of wealth from the middle classes to the upper classes, which defines the movement of wealth in the neo-liberal period. it refers to an increasing disparity of wealth that is concentrated in the hands of the rich, at the expense of everybody else.
i'll let stiglitz use it in context, as he's done much of the most important work on inequality over the last several decades. this is from 2010, apparently. but, i remember hearing the term during the anti-globalization protests of the late 90s.
the kids that are using this term to refer to something else need to read up on it's use in the recent past, and adjust themselves accordingly.
"trickle-up economics" is in fact a very old and understood term on the left, as re-articulated from the previously deployed term "trickle-down economics", that refers to the movement of wealth from the middle classes to the upper classes, which defines the movement of wealth in the neo-liberal period. it refers to an increasing disparity of wealth that is concentrated in the hands of the rich, at the expense of everybody else.
i'll let stiglitz use it in context, as he's done much of the most important work on inequality over the last several decades. this is from 2010, apparently. but, i remember hearing the term during the anti-globalization protests of the late 90s.
the kids that are using this term to refer to something else need to read up on it's use in the recent past, and adjust themselves accordingly.
at
21:44
and, yes - a lot of people voted for his father, who is probably the most important person in the country's entire history.
pierre trudeau is to canada as thomas jefferson is to the united states.
pierre trudeau is to canada as thomas jefferson is to the united states.
at
21:11
we're not a country without polarization.
we're the most polarized in the western world - so polarized that we don't even debate with each other, at all.
political polarization is more like a form of multiculturalism, here.
we're the most polarized in the western world - so polarized that we don't even debate with each other, at all.
political polarization is more like a form of multiculturalism, here.
at
21:01
so, the pundits are confused about lavscam, for example.
well, your target audience is like 200,00 people.
meanwhile, there's 4 million people that want to talk about climate change.
well, your target audience is like 200,00 people.
meanwhile, there's 4 million people that want to talk about climate change.
at
20:58
what would actually be real, meaningful political coverage for the vast majority of canadians would be the competition on the left between the greens, ndp, liberals, bloc and libertarian/people's party, not the competition on the right between the conservatives and liberals.
and, if the media would actually reflect what canadians think and care about, maybe it wouldn't be failing so badly. they don't need a bailout, they need to evaluate the relevance of their coverage.
i will make another prediction: so long as the media refuses to cover what is relevant and meaningful and important to canadians, they will be a minor player in the upcoming election, which will be mostly fought on social media, where people can discuss things they actually care about.
like the climate, for example.
and, if the media would actually reflect what canadians think and care about, maybe it wouldn't be failing so badly. they don't need a bailout, they need to evaluate the relevance of their coverage.
i will make another prediction: so long as the media refuses to cover what is relevant and meaningful and important to canadians, they will be a minor player in the upcoming election, which will be mostly fought on social media, where people can discuss things they actually care about.
like the climate, for example.
at
20:44
so, i will make a prediction: the conservatives will get roughly 5.5 million votes this election.
and, how many seats the liberals lose will depend on how many votes they lose to the greens.
2 million?
3 million?
and, how many seats the liberals lose will depend on how many votes they lose to the greens.
2 million?
3 million?
at
20:31
the change between 2011 and 2015 is particularly instructive.
conservatives: -218 787
liberals: +4 160 101
even if every single lost conservative vote went to the liberals, that was only 5% of the increased liberal vote total.
the actual truth is that the liberal v conservative media narrative is completely irrelevant to the lives of canadians.
and, the liberals want to bail the media out?
conservatives: -218 787
liberals: +4 160 101
even if every single lost conservative vote went to the liberals, that was only 5% of the increased liberal vote total.
the actual truth is that the liberal v conservative media narrative is completely irrelevant to the lives of canadians.
and, the liberals want to bail the media out?
at
20:29
these are gross popular vote totals for the conservatives since 2006 - not adjusted, not percentages, actual numbers.
there are reasons why you should start in 2006 and not earlier.
2006: 5,374,071 [36.27%] (lib martin)
2008: 5,209,069 [37.65% (+1.5%), but down 160,000 actual voters. turnout: -6%.] (lib dion)
2011: 5,832,401 [39.62% (+2%). note that turnout was +2%.] (lib ignatieff)
2015: 5,613,614 [31.89% (-7.77%). note that turnout was +7.2%] (lib trudeau)
it's a very small window of change: 5.2-5.9 million voters. these voters are much older than the population is, too, which means they're much more likely to vote.
these are gross popular vote totals for the liberals in the same period:
2006: 4,479,415 (martin)
2008: 3,633,185 (dion)
2011: 2,783,175 (ignatieff)
2015: 6,943,276 (trudeau)
so, you can see there's a much wider range: 2.7-7.0 million voters that you can't even begin to fit into the swing on the right.
there are reasons why you should start in 2006 and not earlier.
2006: 5,374,071 [36.27%] (lib martin)
2008: 5,209,069 [37.65% (+1.5%), but down 160,000 actual voters. turnout: -6%.] (lib dion)
2011: 5,832,401 [39.62% (+2%). note that turnout was +2%.] (lib ignatieff)
2015: 5,613,614 [31.89% (-7.77%). note that turnout was +7.2%] (lib trudeau)
it's a very small window of change: 5.2-5.9 million voters. these voters are much older than the population is, too, which means they're much more likely to vote.
these are gross popular vote totals for the liberals in the same period:
2006: 4,479,415 (martin)
2008: 3,633,185 (dion)
2011: 2,783,175 (ignatieff)
2015: 6,943,276 (trudeau)
so, you can see there's a much wider range: 2.7-7.0 million voters that you can't even begin to fit into the swing on the right.
at
20:23
in canada, what you have is a small bloc on the right and a much larger bloc on the left. and, while you get intense competition inside of these blocs, that is intra-species competition, you get virtually no competition between the blocs at all.
it's really a perfectly divided society, in that way.
so, when you adjust properly for turnout, you can see 15-20% swings between the parties on the left. but, you'll never see more than a few percentage points worth of change between parties on the left and on the right.
the fact is that the liberals are not in competition with the conservatives in this election, or any other. they are mostly in competition with their own voting base, which they have developed a habit of attacking. they're losing not to this village idiot andy (can i call you andy? no? fuck you.) scheer, but rather to their own rhetoric, which they've utterly failed to live up to.
if turnout is down, you could see the conservative numbers inflated again, as they were in the mid 00s. don't misunderstand that as a movement to the right - it's a statistical trick, an illusion in the numbers.
it's really a perfectly divided society, in that way.
so, when you adjust properly for turnout, you can see 15-20% swings between the parties on the left. but, you'll never see more than a few percentage points worth of change between parties on the left and on the right.
the fact is that the liberals are not in competition with the conservatives in this election, or any other. they are mostly in competition with their own voting base, which they have developed a habit of attacking. they're losing not to this village idiot andy (can i call you andy? no? fuck you.) scheer, but rather to their own rhetoric, which they've utterly failed to live up to.
if turnout is down, you could see the conservative numbers inflated again, as they were in the mid 00s. don't misunderstand that as a movement to the right - it's a statistical trick, an illusion in the numbers.
at
20:04
when you properly adjust for turnout, you get more normal numbers for 2015 regarding the liberal-conservative swing, which is indistinguishable from any reasonable margin of error - a point or two.
what few conservative<---->liberal swing voters existed did not actually affect the outcome of the election.
what few conservative<---->liberal swing voters existed did not actually affect the outcome of the election.
at
19:58
to be complete, what happened in 2015?
liberals: +20.5%. yeah.
ndp: -11%
conservatives: -8%
bloc: -1%
greens: -0.5%
so, the liberals were clearly seen as the consensus candidate on the left - they swung large amounts of (potential) ndp, bloc and green voters. and, they won a convincing, if somewhat weak, majority.
"but, they swung 8% of conservatives, too", you say.
this is a key number:
turnout: +7%.
so, that's actually a bit of a trick.
liberals: +20.5%. yeah.
ndp: -11%
conservatives: -8%
bloc: -1%
greens: -0.5%
so, the liberals were clearly seen as the consensus candidate on the left - they swung large amounts of (potential) ndp, bloc and green voters. and, they won a convincing, if somewhat weak, majority.
"but, they swung 8% of conservatives, too", you say.
this is a key number:
turnout: +7%.
so, that's actually a bit of a trick.
at
19:54
this is what happened in 2008, when dion was running:
liberals: -4%
greens: +2.5%
conservatives: +1.5%
ndp +.5%
bloc: -0.5%
turnout: -6%
result: conservative minority government. and, they should have lost power, due to losing confidence of the house.
you can balance out any marginal conservative increases by observing the decrease in turnout. what actually happened was that the liberals lost a lot of support to parties on their left.
so, don't believe these tory revisionists that want to rewrite history. dion was fighting off a leftist resurgence, and had to compromise, or the outcome would have been worse.
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canadian_federal_election)
and, in fact, we did the experiment - the next guy swung very, very hard to the right, and what happened?
this was the result of the 2011 election, after dion had been replaced by the much more right-wing ignatieff:
liberals: -7.5%
ndp: + 12.5%
bloc: -4%
greens: -3%
conservatives: +2%
turnout: + 2%.
note: there were substantive accusations of vote-rigging by the conservative party in this election.
result: conservative majority government. the liberals ended up in third place, behind the ndp.
so, we see what happens when the liberals swing to the right - they bleed dramatically to the left. in 2015, trudeau ran more like dion than ignatieff, and it finally paid off. there's an argument that trudeau would not have won had dion not set the groundwork for it. but, the basic fact is that people voted to get rid of harper, and saw trudeau as the more left-leaning option on the table. in 2019, that bleed is moving towards the greens rather than the ndp as a consequence of factors that are outside of the liberal party's control, but we're seeing the same basic pattern emerge, as the liberals move right, yet again.
and, if the greens get a huge bump, they could very well throw trudeau right out of office.
i think the data is in fact pretty clear - had dion run as ignatieff, he would have had the same results as ignatieff. and, trudeau's abandonment of the left will likewise leave his party decimated, in the end.
liberals: -4%
greens: +2.5%
conservatives: +1.5%
ndp +.5%
bloc: -0.5%
turnout: -6%
result: conservative minority government. and, they should have lost power, due to losing confidence of the house.
you can balance out any marginal conservative increases by observing the decrease in turnout. what actually happened was that the liberals lost a lot of support to parties on their left.
so, don't believe these tory revisionists that want to rewrite history. dion was fighting off a leftist resurgence, and had to compromise, or the outcome would have been worse.
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canadian_federal_election)
and, in fact, we did the experiment - the next guy swung very, very hard to the right, and what happened?
this was the result of the 2011 election, after dion had been replaced by the much more right-wing ignatieff:
liberals: -7.5%
ndp: + 12.5%
bloc: -4%
greens: -3%
conservatives: +2%
turnout: + 2%.
note: there were substantive accusations of vote-rigging by the conservative party in this election.
result: conservative majority government. the liberals ended up in third place, behind the ndp.
so, we see what happens when the liberals swing to the right - they bleed dramatically to the left. in 2015, trudeau ran more like dion than ignatieff, and it finally paid off. there's an argument that trudeau would not have won had dion not set the groundwork for it. but, the basic fact is that people voted to get rid of harper, and saw trudeau as the more left-leaning option on the table. in 2019, that bleed is moving towards the greens rather than the ndp as a consequence of factors that are outside of the liberal party's control, but we're seeing the same basic pattern emerge, as the liberals move right, yet again.
and, if the greens get a huge bump, they could very well throw trudeau right out of office.
i think the data is in fact pretty clear - had dion run as ignatieff, he would have had the same results as ignatieff. and, trudeau's abandonment of the left will likewise leave his party decimated, in the end.
at
19:41
i mean, they don't think they're going to lose this election because some people are protesting in alberta, do they?
it's beyond disingenuous.
it's delusional.
it's beyond disingenuous.
it's delusional.
at
19:21
the tory media in this country is pretty shameless, though.
it's not interested in facts. it will openly ignore them. it will repeat falsities over and over again, and ignore you when you correct them.
it's just trying to create narratives by telling stories...that's how the media works here, and how it's worked here since the days of vincent massey.
it's not interested in facts. it will openly ignore them. it will repeat falsities over and over again, and ignore you when you correct them.
it's just trying to create narratives by telling stories...that's how the media works here, and how it's worked here since the days of vincent massey.
at
19:16
i mean, it's going to be a tricky sort of doublespeak to look at the results of the election, conclude the conservatives are up maybe two points, and the greens are up ten points, then blame the loss on a largely ineffective carbon reduction tactic.
a bigger vote driver, right now, is that pipeline purchase.
that has been incredibly unpopular with left-coalition voters.
a bigger vote driver, right now, is that pipeline purchase.
that has been incredibly unpopular with left-coalition voters.
at
19:14
this is the narrative that the tory media is pushing in canada, and it's wrong on it's face.
dion was not a poor candidate, and did not perform poorly at the polls. he actually increased his seat count (in quebec) in what was a very tough political environment. as was the case with notley's recent loss in alberta, it's unclear what kind of path dion could have constructed to actually win. he didn't really have a strategy that he could have used.
first, dion had the memory of the cuts to services during the chretien-martin years on his back, which was the primary factor driving the ndp vote. harper was never a popular leader, and only ever managed to increase his vote totals by amounts that are within the margin of error (and could be better explained by decreases in turnout than increases in popularity). but, the liberals were bleeding substantively to the ndp and to the greens in this period, especially west of quebec. what dion had to do was find a way to stop the vote from splitting on the left, a hard task when faced with the reality of defending a neo-liberal party, and while he wasn't able to reverse it, he was at least able to hold the fort.
it was only when ignatieff came in and ran as a right-wing democrat that the liberal vote collapsed, the conservatives got their majority and the ndp were elected as the opposition party.
so, the idea that the green shift fell flat is wrong. it was the right tactic to use at that time in the face of a resurgent left, and it succeeded in preventing the liberals from collapsing, at least for a while. and, when it was abandoned, liberal support fell very sharply - mirroring what is happening right now.
since then, the oil industry has taken over all three major parties in canada, which is the reason that the tory media is projecting this warped messaging around something it still considers to be a threat. they're turning him into a trotsky-esque villain, admonishing him in a ritual of hate. and, it took me not much more than two minutes to type this, too.
in the long run, dion will be seen as the visionary that we were too stupid to embrace. actual historians - not bought and paid for propagandists like aaron wherry - will look back at that period with regret, and they will blame the liberal party apparatchik for not giving him enough time to hone in on his messaging. we could have been ahead of the curve on this, rather than be one of the planet's worst climate criminals.
trudeau had a chance to be on the right side of history, to govern for a long stretch while overseeng a substantive transition in our way of life, and he utterly failed. i told you this in 2015: if he governs on the left, we'll never get rid of him. if he embraces neo-liberalism, he'll be gone in one term.
he has embraced neo-liberalism. and, while he might survive this election in a minority context, he'll be gone, soon.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/08/24/stphane-dions-green-shift-fell-flat-so-why-did-justin-trudeau-think-the-carbon-tax-would-work.html
dion was not a poor candidate, and did not perform poorly at the polls. he actually increased his seat count (in quebec) in what was a very tough political environment. as was the case with notley's recent loss in alberta, it's unclear what kind of path dion could have constructed to actually win. he didn't really have a strategy that he could have used.
first, dion had the memory of the cuts to services during the chretien-martin years on his back, which was the primary factor driving the ndp vote. harper was never a popular leader, and only ever managed to increase his vote totals by amounts that are within the margin of error (and could be better explained by decreases in turnout than increases in popularity). but, the liberals were bleeding substantively to the ndp and to the greens in this period, especially west of quebec. what dion had to do was find a way to stop the vote from splitting on the left, a hard task when faced with the reality of defending a neo-liberal party, and while he wasn't able to reverse it, he was at least able to hold the fort.
it was only when ignatieff came in and ran as a right-wing democrat that the liberal vote collapsed, the conservatives got their majority and the ndp were elected as the opposition party.
so, the idea that the green shift fell flat is wrong. it was the right tactic to use at that time in the face of a resurgent left, and it succeeded in preventing the liberals from collapsing, at least for a while. and, when it was abandoned, liberal support fell very sharply - mirroring what is happening right now.
since then, the oil industry has taken over all three major parties in canada, which is the reason that the tory media is projecting this warped messaging around something it still considers to be a threat. they're turning him into a trotsky-esque villain, admonishing him in a ritual of hate. and, it took me not much more than two minutes to type this, too.
in the long run, dion will be seen as the visionary that we were too stupid to embrace. actual historians - not bought and paid for propagandists like aaron wherry - will look back at that period with regret, and they will blame the liberal party apparatchik for not giving him enough time to hone in on his messaging. we could have been ahead of the curve on this, rather than be one of the planet's worst climate criminals.
trudeau had a chance to be on the right side of history, to govern for a long stretch while overseeng a substantive transition in our way of life, and he utterly failed. i told you this in 2015: if he governs on the left, we'll never get rid of him. if he embraces neo-liberalism, he'll be gone in one term.
he has embraced neo-liberalism. and, while he might survive this election in a minority context, he'll be gone, soon.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/08/24/stphane-dions-green-shift-fell-flat-so-why-did-justin-trudeau-think-the-carbon-tax-would-work.html
at
19:02
so, now i'm pretty sure i'm smelling the gas leaking from upstairs, indicating that his own traps are likely dried up from the dehumidifier. and, he seems to be gone.
why am i constantly surrounded by fucking idiots?
unless he's trying to hide the meth lab....
i'm done all of my cross-references and am ready to start posting, i'm just going to take a short nap, first. there is going to be a large difference in size between the documents: the master document scaled up to 800 pages at 5x8 (and has no scripts. i'll use most of it.), but the music document is only starting at 36. so, i could end up with a 100 page music journal and a 600 page politics journal.
there will be some introductory dtk posts, but it doesn't really start seriously until november.
and, the travel blog will be mostly reduced to discussions with nexus.
soon. and, i think it will be fast...
why am i constantly surrounded by fucking idiots?
unless he's trying to hide the meth lab....
i'm done all of my cross-references and am ready to start posting, i'm just going to take a short nap, first. there is going to be a large difference in size between the documents: the master document scaled up to 800 pages at 5x8 (and has no scripts. i'll use most of it.), but the music document is only starting at 36. so, i could end up with a 100 page music journal and a 600 page politics journal.
there will be some introductory dtk posts, but it doesn't really start seriously until november.
and, the travel blog will be mostly reduced to discussions with nexus.
soon. and, i think it will be fast...
at
15:13
i'm just curious: when you cost things out, and make sure everything is "paid for" in your political vision, who exactly are you actually talking to?
there is really no actual fiscal conservative movement out there, anymore. maybe there used to be, but where is it today, after successive right-wing administrations since the early 80s have run record deficits to line the pockets of investors and shareholders, while neo-liberal administrations masquerading on the left have had to reign them in by cutting access to basic services?
right-wing voters clearly don't actually care much about budgets. if they did, they'd vote for the neo-liberals. and, even the centre-left of the mainstream parties has been complaining about cuts for well over a generation, now.
so, when you hear statements like "if we don't pay for climate change now, it's going to cost us more in the future" who are you talking to?
surely, you aren't talking to the people who stand to profit from inaction, are you?
then, you accuse them of not having a plan. but, this is completely wrong - there is a plan, and the plan is to wait until the very end, because that's how you maximize profit. if you're a company that exists on government procurement like haliburton, or bombardier in canada, then you directly profit from catastrophe, and you want more of it, not less of it.
in that sense, winning the fight requires getting the money out the door as quickly as possible in order to overpower the short-sightedness of contemporary capitalism. and, while i doubt bernie has the analysis correct, he's right in the approach.
if we want to actually do this, we have to throw as much money at it as we can. otherwise, the structural realities of the economy are going to wait for disaster to react - and they're going to reap in record profits from our collective grief, which is the actual climate plan currently in place.
there is really no actual fiscal conservative movement out there, anymore. maybe there used to be, but where is it today, after successive right-wing administrations since the early 80s have run record deficits to line the pockets of investors and shareholders, while neo-liberal administrations masquerading on the left have had to reign them in by cutting access to basic services?
right-wing voters clearly don't actually care much about budgets. if they did, they'd vote for the neo-liberals. and, even the centre-left of the mainstream parties has been complaining about cuts for well over a generation, now.
so, when you hear statements like "if we don't pay for climate change now, it's going to cost us more in the future" who are you talking to?
surely, you aren't talking to the people who stand to profit from inaction, are you?
then, you accuse them of not having a plan. but, this is completely wrong - there is a plan, and the plan is to wait until the very end, because that's how you maximize profit. if you're a company that exists on government procurement like haliburton, or bombardier in canada, then you directly profit from catastrophe, and you want more of it, not less of it.
in that sense, winning the fight requires getting the money out the door as quickly as possible in order to overpower the short-sightedness of contemporary capitalism. and, while i doubt bernie has the analysis correct, he's right in the approach.
if we want to actually do this, we have to throw as much money at it as we can. otherwise, the structural realities of the economy are going to wait for disaster to react - and they're going to reap in record profits from our collective grief, which is the actual climate plan currently in place.
at
13:52
you know what i'm going to do if they put me in jail for not paying my student loan, right?
do i get storage for my stuff? how does that work?
do i get storage for my stuff? how does that work?
at
06:45
and, no, you're not happier after a day of hard work. that's ridiculous...
well, unless you're brainwashed.
and i'm not.
well, unless you're brainwashed.
and i'm not.
at
03:46
and, i know this, and the data is crystal clear regarding it: people that spend their lives focused on maximizing wealth are unhappy.
and, isn't the point to be happy?
we're not happy when we're competing with each other, trying to get more, trying to get ahead. we're happy when we're escaping from that nonsense, and it is nonsense, and focusing on art or just relaxing and having a beer.
i didn't need a study to tell me this, either. it's intuitive. it's obvious. the poor are happier, always, everywhere, because they have less stress and stupidity in their lives to drag them down.
i'm not a zen philosopher, i don't need to be, this is just basic, obvious logic. and, i'll push back as hard as i can, for as long as i can, at a system that wants to make me less happy, so that other people can be less happy, too.
that's called dystopia. and, i don't want into it.
and, isn't the point to be happy?
we're not happy when we're competing with each other, trying to get more, trying to get ahead. we're happy when we're escaping from that nonsense, and it is nonsense, and focusing on art or just relaxing and having a beer.
i didn't need a study to tell me this, either. it's intuitive. it's obvious. the poor are happier, always, everywhere, because they have less stress and stupidity in their lives to drag them down.
i'm not a zen philosopher, i don't need to be, this is just basic, obvious logic. and, i'll push back as hard as i can, for as long as i can, at a system that wants to make me less happy, so that other people can be less happy, too.
that's called dystopia. and, i don't want into it.
at
03:31
my net income is currently around $15,000/yr (cdn) and it's as high or higher than it's ever been.
when you've spent your whole life living with less than $15,000/yr, the numbers required to pay the debt down look astronomical.
like, what do people that make $100,000/yr spend their money on? i presume i'd have to pay some taxes on it, sure. but, at that kind of salary, it'd take me five years to retire.
don't believe me?
$75,000*5 = 375,000.
375,000/15,000 = 25 years.
and, i'm not going to live to 65. my father didn't make it to 60. nor did his.
so, i just can't get my head around this much money. it's not a real sum. whether i have $60,000 in debt or $60,000,000 in debt is pretty much the same thing - it's just a ridiculously large number that i have no chance of even taking a modest dent out of. so, why bother trying?
when you've spent your whole life living with less than $15,000/yr, the numbers required to pay the debt down look astronomical.
like, what do people that make $100,000/yr spend their money on? i presume i'd have to pay some taxes on it, sure. but, at that kind of salary, it'd take me five years to retire.
don't believe me?
$75,000*5 = 375,000.
375,000/15,000 = 25 years.
and, i'm not going to live to 65. my father didn't make it to 60. nor did his.
so, i just can't get my head around this much money. it's not a real sum. whether i have $60,000 in debt or $60,000,000 in debt is pretty much the same thing - it's just a ridiculously large number that i have no chance of even taking a modest dent out of. so, why bother trying?
at
03:21
and, i've done this before.
back in 2008, i took a part-time call center job at $12/hr. they kept trying to schedule me more hours, but i didn't want them - 25 hours/week paid the rent and then some. good enough.
i think i literally watched my dad's heart break when i explained to him that i'd be happier working part time shift work in a call center than in a full time salaried position with the government. but, i didn't want the responsibility. i didn't want to have to go to staff parties, or make friends with my co-workers. and, he thought i'd grow out of it, but he really just didn't understand it.
so long as we're stuck in a capitalist society, i will always do the bare minimum amount of useless labour that is required to survive, because there's no way out of the sisyphean relation. there's no point to it - you'd might as well just kill yourself.
so, expect to have to drag me kicking and screaming, expect me to do the least you can force me to do and expect me to resist to the bitter end.
and, i agree that i shouldn't have gone to school. but, it was better than going to work.
back in 2008, i took a part-time call center job at $12/hr. they kept trying to schedule me more hours, but i didn't want them - 25 hours/week paid the rent and then some. good enough.
i think i literally watched my dad's heart break when i explained to him that i'd be happier working part time shift work in a call center than in a full time salaried position with the government. but, i didn't want the responsibility. i didn't want to have to go to staff parties, or make friends with my co-workers. and, he thought i'd grow out of it, but he really just didn't understand it.
so long as we're stuck in a capitalist society, i will always do the bare minimum amount of useless labour that is required to survive, because there's no way out of the sisyphean relation. there's no point to it - you'd might as well just kill yourself.
so, expect to have to drag me kicking and screaming, expect me to do the least you can force me to do and expect me to resist to the bitter end.
and, i agree that i shouldn't have gone to school. but, it was better than going to work.
at
02:59
but, i don't actually think washing dishes benefits anybody.
if you force me to do it, that means somebody else is unemployed. and, that person might have kids and might want extra hours and etc. i'm only there because the state is forcing me to do it, and i'm going to take the least amount of hours as is necessary to pay my rent.
which, nowadays, is what?
$14*25hrs*4weeks = $1400. that's more than i make now.
but, what's the point of doing that? i'm not going to be very pleasant when i'm there. it's just maximizing everybody's unhappiness.
if you force me to do it, that means somebody else is unemployed. and, that person might have kids and might want extra hours and etc. i'm only there because the state is forcing me to do it, and i'm going to take the least amount of hours as is necessary to pay my rent.
which, nowadays, is what?
$14*25hrs*4weeks = $1400. that's more than i make now.
but, what's the point of doing that? i'm not going to be very pleasant when i'm there. it's just maximizing everybody's unhappiness.
at
02:52
and, you could send me back to school, but i wouldn't have the self-confidence to go to class.....
at
02:46
if i'm going to work, i need to be in a closet at the back of the office, where i have as minimal contact with people as is possible.
i can't handle the stress of normal social environments. i will get into fights. i will get fired....
i can't handle the stress of normal social environments. i will get into fights. i will get fired....
at
02:44
i need to repeat.
washing dishes is about the extent of my abilities.
i can't do anything else. i simply don't have the social skills.
washing dishes is about the extent of my abilities.
i can't do anything else. i simply don't have the social skills.
at
02:43
i expect that i'll find a psychiatrist that will fill out my forms for me.
if not, i will appeal the decision as long as i can, with the hopes that i can hold on until ford is removed from power and the previous system is brought back into place.
if not, i will appeal the decision as long as i can, with the hopes that i can hold on until ford is removed from power and the previous system is brought back into place.
at
02:42
given that i haven't had a job in over ten years, and don't actually want one, the worst case scenario with the temporary shutting down of odsp is that i might have to get a job washing dishes part-time.
in order to actually start paying down the loan with intent, i'd have to get a job making over $25,000/yr, which i've never had, and couldn't even actually contemplate. that's more money than i could imagine budgeting for. it's well beyond my actual abilities and talents....
like i say: they should not have given me these loans. they should have fast-tracked me on to disability. i simply have no ambition, whatsoever, in the work force.
in order to actually start paying down the loan with intent, i'd have to get a job making over $25,000/yr, which i've never had, and couldn't even actually contemplate. that's more money than i could imagine budgeting for. it's well beyond my actual abilities and talents....
like i say: they should not have given me these loans. they should have fast-tracked me on to disability. i simply have no ambition, whatsoever, in the work force.
at
02:37
and, just to be clear on a point.
there's no ads on my blogs. i don't make money from this.
there's ads on my vlogs, but i've made something like $3.00 since 2015. they've never sent me a check.
and, i don't sell enough music to bother claiming it for tax purposes. i haven't sold anything since 2017.
i have no assets. i don't own a car. my guitars aren't worth anything, and my synths are all broken. the newest computer i have would have been built from the factory about 2012.
i literally have no income, and i literally have no wealth.
and i'm happy as a clam about it, because i don't give a fuck about status.
there's no ads on my blogs. i don't make money from this.
there's ads on my vlogs, but i've made something like $3.00 since 2015. they've never sent me a check.
and, i don't sell enough music to bother claiming it for tax purposes. i haven't sold anything since 2017.
i have no assets. i don't own a car. my guitars aren't worth anything, and my synths are all broken. the newest computer i have would have been built from the factory about 2012.
i literally have no income, and i literally have no wealth.
and i'm happy as a clam about it, because i don't give a fuck about status.
at
02:33
i got a letter from the student loan people threatening to sue me if i don't contact them in the next 15 days. in fact, that's actually exactly what i want, as i couldn't imagine a judge doing anything but giving them shit for bothering with this file.
i haven't made a loan payment since 2008, i think. i've been on odsp since 2012. i last contacted them in 2013 to tell them that i'm permanently disabled, and will never make another payment on the loan. i told them at the time that the interest will just grow out of control, until they cancel it or i die (and wasn't sure what would happen first). they ignored me; so, i ignored them. as predicted, the interest has grown, and now they're telling me i must start paying it because the interest is out of control.
well, you were charging interest on a defaulted loan held by a disabled person. what the fuck did you expect to happen, you fucking idiots?
i'm still disabled, and there's still no way i can start making payments. interest on the loan is actually larger than my odsp check. it's literally an impossibility. and, i still really don't give a fuck - i'll kill myself, or go to jail, before i start making payments.
my position has been clear for years: the state did not due it's due diligence. they kept giving me money. no research was put into how or if i'd be able to pay it. if it was any other kind of loan, the responsibility for the default would lay with the bankers. the fact is that it was an irresponsible decision to give me this loan, that it was predictable that this would be the outcome and that i should have been denied at the source. my recommendation would be that the state should be doing it's due diligence on student loan payments.
as it is, they can't touch my disability check. so, the judge can rule any which way she wants, unless she's willing to throw me in jail, there's no end point besides forgiving it.
so, i'm going to call them to request that they keep me up to date on the court proceedings, so i can make an appearance to argue my case.
i haven't made a loan payment since 2008, i think. i've been on odsp since 2012. i last contacted them in 2013 to tell them that i'm permanently disabled, and will never make another payment on the loan. i told them at the time that the interest will just grow out of control, until they cancel it or i die (and wasn't sure what would happen first). they ignored me; so, i ignored them. as predicted, the interest has grown, and now they're telling me i must start paying it because the interest is out of control.
well, you were charging interest on a defaulted loan held by a disabled person. what the fuck did you expect to happen, you fucking idiots?
i'm still disabled, and there's still no way i can start making payments. interest on the loan is actually larger than my odsp check. it's literally an impossibility. and, i still really don't give a fuck - i'll kill myself, or go to jail, before i start making payments.
my position has been clear for years: the state did not due it's due diligence. they kept giving me money. no research was put into how or if i'd be able to pay it. if it was any other kind of loan, the responsibility for the default would lay with the bankers. the fact is that it was an irresponsible decision to give me this loan, that it was predictable that this would be the outcome and that i should have been denied at the source. my recommendation would be that the state should be doing it's due diligence on student loan payments.
as it is, they can't touch my disability check. so, the judge can rule any which way she wants, unless she's willing to throw me in jail, there's no end point besides forgiving it.
so, i'm going to call them to request that they keep me up to date on the court proceedings, so i can make an appearance to argue my case.
at
02:28
i had to update the music and politics journals for 09/13, as i missed a
conceptual component, namely the last date of modification of the
installation files that were being installed over this month.
the update is minor: it is simply the name of 41 installation files, in the form of isos & exes, as well as some reg and txt files. this should help document the kind of software that i started off with in 2013, or, stated equivalently, that i left off with in 2011.
the documents are updated at bandcamp
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/09-2013-music-journal
and also atnoise trade smashwords:
https://books.noisetrade.com//j/092013-dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1026603
the master document for october is already done, and it should not take long to get the next entry up.
the update is minor: it is simply the name of 41 installation files, in the form of isos & exes, as well as some reg and txt files. this should help document the kind of software that i started off with in 2013, or, stated equivalently, that i left off with in 2011.
the documents are updated at bandcamp
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/09-2013-music-journal
and also at
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1026603
the master document for october is already done, and it should not take long to get the next entry up.
at
01:20
and, if you missed the context of over 15,000 posts here and are tuning in somewhere late where you haven't read the explanation, i'll clarify: what i'm talking about is decolonization, which means both dechristianization and deromanization.
at
00:01
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)