This meme screams “I am a moron completely disconnected from reality”

People with large amounts of capital are focused on capital retention and not growth, so it is not short sighted for them to leave there capital in a deflationary currency. It is a low risk investment that will beat inflation by default. It is actually a great investment for them. Normally the rich would use treasury bonds that will beat inflation instead. Lowering the interest rate of treasury bonds forces the rich to risk their capital in the market where they could lose it. They reduce this risk by diversification of stocks, but it is still riskier than a treasury bond or deflationary currency which they would prefer.

I bring up the unequal negotiating power because wages not keeping up with inflation is the core complaint you had. Regardless of inflation or deflation the business owners will try to reduce costs and will often screw over the working class. If the currency inflates than they don’t give you a large enough raise. If the currency deflates than they will have to reduce your wage and will find a way to justify it. In both situations the business owner will screw over the working class because of unequal negotiating power.

Basically using deflation to fix worker compensation is like using a hammer on a screw. A screw looks like a nail, but a hammer is not the right tool for this problem. Unions are the drill that fix unequal negotiating power and the US has been undermining them for decades at this point. Inflation is a tool to force the rich to invest and risk their capital while deflation benefits the rich and their ability to maintain their status. If you want to imagine a society without capital then fine, but no such society has ever replaced currency which is just an abstraction for work done, but payment not yet redeemed. Gold, coupons, and dollars can all be currency. It is bad for a society if individuals can horde a currency and deflation makes it extremely easy to do so. As long as currency exists it is better to force the wealthy to risk their capital in the open market where they will lose some or all of it.

If I can expect my dollars to grow more safely in my bank account than in the market which has risk then I will leave it in the bank account. Non fiat currencies have uncontrolled inflation and deflation and caused many issues that became apparent several times in history.

In regards to wages, if deflation became normal than businesses would just start reducing salaries. The true issue of wages is unequal negotiating power of the worker and employer. Instead of trying to fix this with currency value manipulation which does not work, you should look into unionization which has a far better results.

Unfortunately deflation decreases the supply of capital but does not increase the supply of resources like food and such and does not decrease the demand for them. So it would not increase the true buying power the working class has. It would just disincentivize those with capital from investing in industry that could increase supply of food and such and instead people with excess capital will just hold on to their money.

The root of your concern is that the working classes buying power has been decreasing for decades which decreases their quality of life. The root cause of this issue is that supply has not been able to keep up with demand. The causes of this are large and varied depending on if we are talking about food, housing, or medicine etc. Inflation is one of the few tools the government has to cause industry to grow which will hopefully increase the supply of resources. Unfortunately there are many more factors in regards to supply and demand, and demand is increasing faster than supply.

Deflation benefits those who have the most capital already. It turns capital itself into a productive asset, but it does not actually produce anything of real value so does not help society. It is manufactured scarcity, like bitcoin and etfs.

Since you didn’t explain why, I will. If society has deflation all investments stop because people can hold their money and it will grow. If you have a small amount of inflation then those will large amounts of capital are forced to invest it or lose it over time. Inflation is basically a wealth tax for non investors. Obviously inflation that is too high acts much like a wealth tax that is too high. Inflation effects the rich and poor unless they invest their capital which the rich will often do better. Over all thoigh a small amount of inflation is good for an economy to force people to invest capital in something.

Yep, there are several studies researching this in various ways. An important thing to point out is that those two portions of the brains are inversely correlated without affecting other portions of the brain like the frontal cortex. So a person can be a good doctor or scientist and also be conservative. So conservatives have high fear responses to people who are different and lack empathy while left leaning people have less fear and increased empathy. Studies also show that brains develop to have an oversized amygdala when they have physical or emotional abuse as growing up or if they have severe lack of resources.

deleted by creator

I kind of agree that many super rich get their wealth through unscrupulous means. As a counter point, there do exists many ways to become super rich that are not unethical. Divorce, inheritance, lottery winner, revolutionary technology, extremely popular book etc. Once a person gets a certain amount of wealth, simply not spending it too much and leaving it in the market will in the long term leave you one of the wealthiest people.

Like Buffet, Bill Gates has been publicly supportive of increased taxes for the rich. One could argue that he should disperse his wealth without being forced to, but one could also argue that if every good rich person gave away their money, without the bad rich people being forced to, we would only have bad rich people controlling our politicians. One could also argue that a good rich person can invest in good things that the public run government would not be able to or willing to. For instance vaccinating the entire world to make tuberculosis extinct would never be supported by the US government as a majority of americans don’t care about the poor in other countries and don’t want to pay for it. I find the whole “all rich people are evil” arguement to not hold up to pragmatic logic.

I read a few studies a while back that were able to predict if a person self identified as conservative or liberal based off of their brain patterns that were measured. I believe the the distinct areas were the right amygdala (handles instictual behaviour) and the left anterior cortex (which I think was used for intepreting how others will behave). Use of one part decreased the use of the other part. Scientist were able to successfully predict the right amygdala was associated with conservatives about 85ish% and anterior cortex for self identified liberals.

Other studies show that decreased use of the left anterior cortex is associated with childhood abuse (either physical or emotional), so it is reasonable to believe most conservatives had emotional/physical abuse during childhood that left them with an underdeveloped brain. Unfortunantly studies show there is very little that can be done to fix this deficiency once the person reaches mid to early twenties.

I guess the point is that they are not necessarily psychopaths, but they do have defective brain processes and we should improve systems and education that will help reduce childhood abuse, and teach empathy in schools if we want to reduce the quantity of right wingers.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Maybe we shouldn’t love a group of people for their skin color alone.

deleted by creator

The problem is that both are telling the truth. Some hospitals have discounts for low income people and others don’t. Some medical emergencies are easy to write off while others aren’t. If you don’t have decent insurance in the US it becomes kind of a lottery system, which in the end makes it harder to change voters opinions.

You mention before puberty, but the research is quite fascinating. There is strong evidence a hormone imbalance in your mother when your are still a fetus can have a dramatic effect on your sexual orientation as an adult. But also on a negative side sexual abuse of adolescents can also have a significant effect on adult sexuality. Human sexual orientation and the factors at play are very diverse and interesting.

Right now AI like that is heavily subsidized by investors. My concern with AIs feasibility is that training is so expensive that it won’t be able to stay free. Remember we can only stop ai training if the AI topic is no longer developing. Also if the AI can source its answer with a link, did it provide me with a new service that is better than a search engine?

When I google an issue I quickly get a list of possible solutions with other developers commenting on them with corrections. People can often upvote and downvote answers to indicate if they work or not and if they stop working.

With ai I get a single source of information without the equivalent to peer review. The answer may be out of date and it may misunderstand my request. It may also make the same mistake I am making that I would have caught with a quick googling.

The ai may be able to make boilerplate code occasionally without too much rework, but boilerplate code is not that hard to make already.

The AI is massively more expensive than a search engine and I have not seen any indication that will change soon. This is the biggest problem in my mind. I don’t ever expect to have to pay for google. I expect in the future the ai will need to be paid for somehow and I have a feeling they will have to charge too much to justify the use of AI for software development work.

AI has plenty of good uses, but I do not believe software development is the winner. Block chain for instance was massively useful for git repositories, but not useful for many of the crazy things companies attempted to use it for.