Needed: Counterpart to 'Woke'

[laughing dog]

Why do federal employees enjoy pensions and medical far in excess of the average private worker?

I prefer to say why do private workers not enjoy pensions and medical like federal employees do.

You like to consider yourself an advocate for the working man but you continue to use management's talking points.

Plus federal workers tend to be paid less in salary than their private sector counterparts, so better benefits is a way to induce people to work for the federal gov't.

 

[Gospel]

Given America's history and its role on the global stage, one could argue that being 'woke' is deeply American. After all, the U.S. was built on ideals of liberty, equality, and the right to challenge authority when it fails to serve the people. From the Civil Rights Movement to women's suffrage and beyond, Americans have consistently pushed to expand these freedoms to all, regardless of race, gender, or background.

In this sense, to be 'woke' is to embody a vigilant American spirit that questions inequality and works to fulfill the nation’s promise of 'liberty and justice for all.' Instead of allowing 'woke' to be used as a divisive term, we should remind those unpatriotic idiots that they're insulting our national commitment to inclusivity, resilience, and fairness.

• The Original Tea Party Movement: Colonists protested British taxation without representation, recognizing and opposing an unjust system that denied them political agency. This movement wasn’t just about taxes; it was about resisting unfair treatment and asserting rights—much like modern "woke" movements that challenge systemic injustices. Their willingness to stand against an oppressive power structure for the principle of fairness reflects a deeply "woke" consciousness.
• Religious Freedom and the Separation from Britain: Many early settlers left Europe to escape religious persecution. Their desire for a society that allowed diverse beliefs without interference from a state-sanctioned religion was revolutionary at the time. This push for religious freedom paved the way for a fundamental American value of tolerance and respect for different beliefs—a cornerstone of social justice and personal liberty.
• The Abolitionist Movement: This movement in the 19th century, advocating for the end of slavery, was a profound example of early American "wokeness." Abolitionists were acutely aware of the moral and ethical injustices of slavery, often at great personal risk, and they mobilized others to recognize and act against this deeply rooted injustice. Their work is one of America’s earliest examples of societal self-critique leading to transformative change.
• Women’s Suffrage Movement: The fight for women’s right to vote exemplified an awareness of gender inequality and a proactive push to correct it. Suffragists sought to align America’s political system with its stated principles of equality and representation, challenging a long-standing imbalance in rights and freedoms.
• Civil Rights Movement: This movement explicitly aimed to address racial discrimination, segregation, and systemic inequalities, seeking to fulfill the American ideal of equal rights. Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. called for the country to live up to its promise of freedom and justice for all, highlighting how far America still had to go to realize its foundational values.

America has always been woke biotch! That's the counter.

 

[Gospel]

Id even argue that Independence Day itself is a celebration of 'wokeness.' While the ideals of freedom and equality weren’t extended to all groups at the time, the colonists were 'woke' to the injustices they faced under British rule and took bold steps toward independence. They recognized their right to self-determination and fought for a fairer system, embodying the same spirit of questioning authority and seeking justice that drives the modern 'woke' movement.

 

[Gospel]

Our conservative media has been compromised.

 

[Elixir]

Our conservative media has been compromised.

Definitely controlled by foreign interests.

 

[bilby]

why is it not possible (on average) for the US to export the same amount of goods/services that we import?

It's possible. But it would mean the USA was no longer as wealthy a nation.

You currently take more from the world than you give back. The world accepts this, because the world likes US Dollars, and the only source of US Dollars is the USA. The USA has a literally inexhaustible supply of US Dollars, and can make as many as she wants at zero marginal cost.

Why the fuck would you want to stop getting stuff in exchange for what (to your country) is available for no effort, and instead start only getting stuff in exchange for stuff your countrymen have to put in effort to obtain?

We should be producing what we consume and not printing the money to purchase what we import.

Why??

 

[bilby]

If the citizens in those countries prefer to use our dollars to trade in their countries, then basically we are getting their goods and services for the paper we printed out money.

Point of information: Money is mostly not printed on anything. The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

 

[Bomb#20]

What you said and what I responded to:

No, it was first adopted as a "slur" because for one it is just a ridiculous sounding word and second, it was used in earnest by people with ridiculous positions that were ripe for ridicule.

It would be plain to see above but you conveniently and deliberately did not include the quote that demonstrated that. A very dishonest debate tactic if you ask me.

I then demonstrated how the word was really first adopted by black culture of the 1930s.

The only way you could actually have been right was by totally dismissing the origin in black culture. I wish that was something that was beneath you but considering your statements in this thread about woke and BLM I highy doubt it.

Oh for the love of god! What Derec said in context and what you responded to by taking out of context was:

American "conservatives" adopted "Woke" as a slur not because it is clever or nasty, but because they needed to defuse it's power at highlighting the deficiencies of their own ideologies.

No, it was first adopted as a "slur" because for one it is just a ridiculous sounding word and second, it was used in earnest by people with ridiculous positions that were ripe for ridicule.

The subject under discussion was 'adopted "Woke" as a slur'. That's what zorq was already talking about, so Derec simply described the circumstances when this first happened. He obviously meant (it was (first (adopted as a "slur"))). You misparsed his words as (it was (first adopted) (as a "slur")), probably because you didn't take note of the context. When the word was "first adopted by black culture of the 1930s", it was not adopted as a slur, so that's not the topic zorq was talking about, so that's not what Derec replied to him about. It's not Derec's fault that English doesn't use parentheses to guide the extraction of tree structure from a linear word sequence. English instead relies on context to disambiguate syntactically ambiguous constructions. And it's not Derec's fault that you didn't pay enough attention to context.

A very dishonest debate tactic if you ask me.

A very unjust accusation, whether you ask me or not.

 

[Bomb#20]

why is it not possible (on average) for the US to export the same amount of goods/services that we import?

It's possible. But it would mean the USA was no longer as wealthy a nation.

You currently take more from the world than you give back. The world accepts this, because the world likes US Dollars, and the only source of US Dollars is the USA. The USA has a literally inexhaustible supply of US Dollars, and can make as many as she wants at zero marginal cost.

Why ... would you want to stop getting stuff in exchange for what (to your country) is available for no effort, and instead start only getting stuff in exchange for stuff your countrymen have to put in effort to obtain?

We should be producing what we consume and not printing the money to purchase what we import.

Why??

... The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

Your argument would make perfect sense if America were a single person. Then it would be in America's self-interest for America to get those goods and services for nothing but incrementing a computer memory word. But America is not a self, so it has no self-interest. We're three hundred million people. It's not clear why it would be in RVonse's interest for some second American to get goods and services for nothing but some third American incrementing a computer memory word. You wrote "You currently take more from the world than you give back." What evidence do you have that RVonse currently takes more from the world than he gives back? What stuff will RVonse stop getting "in exchange" for all the dollars our government creates?

 

[bilby]

why is it not possible (on average) for the US to export the same amount of goods/services that we import?

It's possible. But it would mean the USA was no longer as wealthy a nation.

You currently take more from the world than you give back. The world accepts this, because the world likes US Dollars, and the only source of US Dollars is the USA. The USA has a literally inexhaustible supply of US Dollars, and can make as many as she wants at zero marginal cost.

Why ... would you want to stop getting stuff in exchange for what (to your country) is available for no effort, and instead start only getting stuff in exchange for stuff your countrymen have to put in effort to obtain?

We should be producing what we consume and not printing the money to purchase what we import.

Why??

... The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

Your argument would make perfect sense if America were a single person. Then it would be in America's self-interest for America to get those goods and services for nothing but incrementing a computer memory word. But America is not a self, so it has no self-interest. We're three hundred million people. It's not clear why it would be in RVonse's interest for some second American to get goods and services for nothing but some third American incrementing a computer memory word. You wrote "You currently take more from the world than you give back." What evidence do you have that RVonse currently takes more from the world than he gives back? What stuff will RVonse stop getting "in exchange" for all the dollars our government creates?

America, like all nations, is a corporate entity that has interests.

To the extent that the interests of the USA do not conform with the interests of individual American citizens, America is an unjust corporate entity, wherein some citizens are given more access to the benefits of international trade* than others (and some are more exposed to any detrimental consequences of such trade).

That all nation states in history fail to provide a just and equitable distribution of the benefits of international commerce, and that therefore there will inevitably be a mismatch between US interests and RVonse's interests, appeared to me to be so obvious as to go without saying. Apparently not.

Certainly I am disappointed by your rhetorical equivocation on the meaning of 'you'; When I say "You currently take more from the world than you give back", "You" is a plural, and refers to the USA as a body corporate.

It's also worth mentioning that if other Americans have more stuff, (and particularly if they obtained it cheaply or effectively for nothing), this should ceteris paribus imply that RVonse can obtain those things more cheaply, by trading with those other Americans.






* and to forestall further complaint, yes, I am aware that most trade is not done by the US itself, but by US corporations, businesses, and citizens; The benefits (or detriments) I refer to are those deriving from the trade environment created by the US Federal Government, including (but not limited to) tariffs, the value of the dollar against other currencies, the security of international shipping (and the consequent cost of insuring cargoes), embargoes, sanctions, free trade agreements, etc., etc.,

 

[Bomb#20]

America, like all nations, is a corporate entity that has interests. ... Certainly I am disappointed by your rhetorical equivocation on the meaning of 'you'; When I say "You currently take more from the world than you give back", "You" is a plural, and refers to the USA as a body corporate.

Ah. So when you wrote:

... The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

you were accusing America as a corporate entity of being foolish and churlish and of complaining about America as a corporate entity being made to "feel bad". Got it. Sorry to misunderstand.

 

[bilby]

America, like all nations, is a corporate entity that has interests. ... Certainly I am disappointed by your rhetorical equivocation on the meaning of 'you'; When I say "You currently take more from the world than you give back", "You" is a plural, and refers to the USA as a body corporate.

Ah. So when you wrote:

​

... The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

​

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.​

​

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.​

you were accusing America as a corporate entity of being foolish and churlish and of complaining about America as a corporate entity being made to "feel bad".

No.

Got it. Sorry to misunderstand.

No, you clearly aren't.

 

[RVonse]

If the citizens in those countries prefer to use our dollars to trade in their countries, then basically we are getting their goods and services for the paper we printed out money.

Point of information: Money is mostly not printed on anything. The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

This is a very short sided view and it is better for the billionaire class, I will give you that. But this arrangement is far worse for the labor class (far outnumbering the billionaire class) whose subsistence depends on their labor. Because their ability to support themselves directly depends on what they actually accomplish and produce. That class no longer has any local production infrastructure so they are left in the cold.

But far worse is that the rest of the world will not indefinitely produce goods for nothing. The free ride for the billionaire class will not last forever. One can see the free ride ending simply by looking at interest expense of the federal debt becoming higher to the point it outdoes federal tax receipts. That is when the rest of the world finally wakes up to the dollar only being pure fiat and nothing more. This consequence will be devastating and dire for the US. The cost of imported goods will sky rocket with no local means of production making the US instantly a 3rd world economy. In the final analysis, it is only real assets and ability to produce goods and services that matters to sustained well being of everyone.

 

[cycomiko]

If the citizens in those countries prefer to use our dollars to trade in their countries, then basically we are getting their goods and services for the paper we printed out money.

Point of information: Money is mostly not printed on anything. The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

This is a very short sided view and it is better for the billionaire class, I will give you that. But this arrangement is far worse for the labor class (far outnumbering the billionaire class) whose subsistence depends on their labor. Because their ability to support themselves directly depends on what they actually accomplish and produce. That class no longer has any local production infrastructure so they are left in the cold.

But far worse is that the rest of the world will not indefinitely produce goods for nothing. The free ride for the billionaire class will not last forever. One can see the free ride ending simply by looking at interest expense of the federal debt becoming higher to the point it outdoes federal tax receipts. That is when the rest of the world finally wakes up to the dollar only being pure fiat and nothing more. This consequence will be devastating and dire for the US. The cost of imported goods will sky rocket with no local means of production making the US instantly a 3rd world economy. In the final analysis, it is only real assets and ability to produce goods and services that matters to sustained well being of everyone.

You make some good points. We should increase taxes on that billionaire class to partially balance that equation. This side of the equation will continue to get worse under Trump and therefore the debt will rise even further. Maybe you're just voting pro-billionaire to speed up the process of ending the free ride?

Next, when we bring back the production jobs to this country, we need to make sure those people working the factories understand that in order to keep prices from skyrocketing they'll need to accept wages and benefits at near 3rd world levels. Unfortunately, nobody will be willing to accept such low pay for the benefit of the country so we'll rely on immigrants or outsourcing. This is where you tax the shit out of the rich and only give them relief if they measurably keep prices low and pay living wages.

I'm personally always willing to pay more for local products and services but I'm also solidly middle to upper middle class in a DINK household and can afford to do that.

 

[laughing dog]

If the citizens in those countries prefer to use our dollars to trade in their countries, then basically we are getting their goods and services for the paper we printed out money.

Point of information: Money is mostly not printed on anything. The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

This is a very short sided view and it is better for the billionaire class, I will give you that. But this arrangement is far worse for the labor class (far outnumbering the billionaire class) whose subsistence depends on their labor. Because their ability to support themselves directly depends on what they actually accomplish and produce. That class no longer has any local production infrastructure so they are left in the cold....

If our dollars literally never return to the US, that means we are getting stuff for nothing, If and when the rest of the world is tired of producing goods and services for nothing (i.e. exporting to the US), then they will start buying more things from us which means we produce and export more.

To summarize, we got stuff for "nothing" until the rest of the world decides to stop subsidizing our consumption and then we increase our domestic production with all of its attendant benefits. Seems to me that is a pretty good deal. BTW, that is the adjustment mechanism under the "honest money" international monetary system that you seem to want.

 

[RVonse]

If and when the rest of the world is tired of producing goods and services for nothing (i.e. exporting to the US), then they will start buying more things from us which means we produce and export more.

Not if we do not have the factories or infrastructure anymore.

It takes a lot of time and capital to build just an auto factory which is orders of magnitudes easier than a state of the art chip factory. And if the fed removes any incentive to save there is no capital to invest on shore.

 

[laughing dog]

If and when the rest of the world is tired of producing goods and services for nothing (i.e. exporting to the US), then they will start buying more things from us which means we produce and export more.

Not if we do not have the factories or infrastructure anymore.

It takes a lot of time and capital to build just an auto factory which is orders of magnitudes easier than a state of the art chip factory. And if the fed removes any incentive to save there is no capital to invest on shore.

There is no reason whatsoever to think that our manufacturing infrastructure will disappear. Just like there is no reason to think "the fed" has the ability to remove every incentive to save.

What prompts these counterfactual and illogical assumptions of yours?

 

[bilby]

But far worse is that the rest of the world will not indefinitely produce goods for nothing. The free ride for the billionaire class will not last forever. One can see the free ride ending

Oh, no!

"We got a bunch of free stuff, but I don't want it because one day it might stop coming" is not a great argument for why you should be upset about getting free stuff.

 

[bilby]

That is when the rest of the world finally wakes up to the dollar only being pure fiat and nothing more.

All important currencies are pure fiat and nothing more.

All useful currencies are pure fiat and nothing more.

The most useful attribute of a monetary base is its uselessness for much other than as money. Fiat currencies are better even than gold in this regard, because gold has some use for jewellery, electronics, and optical coatings.

Cryptocurrencies are fiat money rendered less useful by pointlessly restricting their supply in ways not related to the size of the economy they operate within, hence their massive instability and abject lack of uptake by anyone other than criminals and weirdoes.

Fiat currency is one of the greatest boons in economic history, and since the collapse of the crazy idea of pegging currencies to commodities, the global economy has boomed beyond recognition.

 

[Bomb#20]

America, like all nations, is a corporate entity that has interests. ... Certainly I am disappointed by your rhetorical equivocation on the meaning of 'you'; When I say "You currently take more from the world than you give back", "You" is a plural, and refers to the USA as a body corporate.

Ah. So when you wrote:

​

... The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

​

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.​

​

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.​

you were accusing America as a corporate entity of being foolish and churlish and of complaining about America as a corporate entity being made to "feel bad".

No.

Got it. Sorry to misunderstand.

No, you clearly aren't.

Oh, good, you picked up on the sarcasm.

There are winners and losers from the policies RVonse addressed, and it is perfectly reasonable for people who care more about the losers than the winners to criticize those policies. You made out RVonse's criticisms to be irrational by glossing over the losers, by just lumping them in with the winners, using "you" as a catch-all term. And then you belittled RVonse's concerns as 'makes you "feel bad"', as though they couldn't possibly have more substance than that, by creating a verbal illusion that the complainer and the receiver were one and the same person, by using the same word "you" both for RVonse and for the mass of presumed winners who get the free stuff. And you accuse me of "rhetorical equivocation on the meaning of 'you'".

He was not being churlish in the least and you were totally out of line to trump up the accusation.