Stats for nerds
1recommend
2mentions
2people
2022–2025years
50% recommend50% critical
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- >Why am I constantly told that mindless consumption is some great evil
The history on this is amazing. The rules were written in the 1700s and are still true today. For example, The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel Founding fathers of the USA used much of the Arab world's recent experiences, at the time, to understand these natural laws and why decadence is the problem.
Consumption isn't evil, it's decadence that is evil. The video game Crusader Kings follows this: https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Decadence
What modern day commies are failing to see the distinction and so they see all consumption as decadence. Marx argued against this; but modern commies dont agree with marx. Unnecessary to go into this but this is what you're seeing.
>yet the entire of society is designed to encourage consumption through constant devaluation of the currency? I see no argument why stable value is not the best of all worlds.
Why is inflation pegged at 2% as opposed to say 3%? It comes from gold inflation. There is technically a finite amount of gold in the solar system. There's even less on earth. There's even less accessible via profitable mining. There is a production of gold which dilutes/inflates their value and it averages at 2%.
After governments dropped the gold standard, they artificially kept 2% just because they dont want to be the one to mess with that # and cause something bad to happen and take the blame.
Now step back. Why suddenly is crypto such a big deal? The USA dropped the gold standard, they remained a reserve currency because of their debt ceiling and low debt. At least back in the 70s-80s.
The European Union on the otherhand has debt ceiling defined at 60%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_and_Growth_Pact
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-...
Does that look like 60%? They knew they couldn't stay in the EU. Brexit happened.
https://tradingeconomics.com/france/government-debt-to-gdp
Does that look like 60%? France will be leaving the EU eventually as well. As well as bring their own currency back in order to print money.
These are all natural laws between nations and why it keeps failing. It's decadence. It's decadent deficit spending on things they cannot afford. This is what modern day commies dont seem to understand that Marx did explain.
>Deflation and inflation both have economic warping side effects. With a constant price I only invest when I truly believe there is a real return, not just trying to keep up with inflation.
USSR collapsed and we have so little communism today because communism fails to handle decadence. Though yes it did function for so long because the decadence was in the 'black market'. Mind you, capitalism doesn't seem to do a great job neither. Not many countries have the mind to control their deficit spending and limit their decadence.
- I am not an immigration lawyer, but I am very interested in immigration law and the effort to overturn this precedent in particular, an interest whch goes back more than 15 years; so I have done a lot of reading on this argument.
The whole phrase about 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' refers to the fact that foreign diplomats (and often, their families) are not subject to the jurisdiction of their countries of residence, a concept known as diplomatic immunity. This sometimes leads to people with diplomatic privileges avoiding legal consequences that would otherwise result in fines or custodial sentences, as in this recent case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
Regular, not-diplomatic people of foreign origin who are in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of US courts like anyone else. I have never found any legal justification for the opposite view other than the intense desire of the proponent for things to be different. Usually people who want to sweep aside this precedent rely on an 18th century book called The Law of Nations by Swiss legal theorist Emer Vattel, which opts for a concept of de jure (naturalized) citizenship rather than jus soli (of the soil) citizenship as exists here and in some other countries. They argue that it was a very popular book in its day and that Washington, Jefferson, and other founders of the US had certainly read it. when asked why they didn't just write this into the Constitution you usually get a hand-wavey answer about how it was so obvious they didn't see any need (at best) or the person just stops responding or gets mad (at worst).
