The Democratic National Convention

[Burinn]

It might be because you're from another country and don't fully understand the sociopolitical dynamo of the United States, but a black man becoming president was/is a very big deal in a vacuum.

[borka]

Burinn we have seen it as a big deal too back then ... you might remember how he was cheered by the people in western europe when he came over here first time ...

You shouldn't underestimate what politically interested people over here know ... i guess often a lot more than most average USamericans know - and with a less egocentrical look ...

[Grog]

She still has a valid point.
I will never understand the forms of "representation" Americans seem to value so much.
For me it's like fighting racism with racism and sexism with sexism.

For example:
I remember a German cosplayer beeing accused of blackfacing and racism just because she cosplayed an actress of a different skin tone.

[Burinn]

She still has a valid point.
I will never understand the forms of "representation" Americans seem to value so much.
For me it's like fighting racism with racism and sexism with sexism.

For example:
I remember a German cosplayer beeing accused of blackfacing and racism just because she cosplayed an actress of a different skin tone.

Quite a lot of it has to do with the fact there is no central American identity. I mean segregation only ended ~60 years ago.

[MagicManICT]

What did I miss?

Nuland ...

O, right. He spied on every allied country ever.

Those policies were actually implemented post 9/11 under Bush and not fully realized until after Obama was elected. Has he done anything to shut it down? Nope, too much circle jerking with Britain's and Germany's intelligence services to shut it down.

@JSN: Dude, you really need to learn some basic economics and scientific principles before you start bringing that BS. At least jorb argues Austrian Economics from a knowlegeable position.

The RNC was a major let down. I was expecting major action similar to the 1968 DNC. This is going to be about as boring as politics gets. I like Clinton. She's done a good bit, but she's caused issues, too. She just doesn't have the passion of Trump or Sanders. At least they promise something people rallied behind, even if one promised nothing, and the other promised turning us into a Socialist paradise.

[Grog]

She still has a valid point.
I will never understand the forms of "representation" Americans seem to value so much.
For me it's like fighting racism with racism and sexism with sexism.

For example:
I remember a German cosplayer beeing accused of blackfacing and racism just because she cosplayed an actress of a different skin tone.

Quite a lot of it has to do with the fact there is no central American identity. I mean segregation only ended ~60 years ago.

I agree. My point is: You wont get one by creating different segregations.

@MagicManICT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BuPgrBwHU

[Jalpha]

Wow, I ignored this thread for ages because I didn't see it going anywhere but it's actually been rather interesting. I have some comments to add on minimum wage and the role of government in supporting the poor.

A higher minimum wage (or average wage even) pushes the cost of living up. That's a pretty basic conclusion to come to, if you can be charged more to live then companies will do so to increase their own profit margins. It happened here during the mining boom when people could go and work in the mines and earn 100k+. Now look at the cost of housing in Australia and also our exorbitant cost of living. On the tail end of the mining boom people are just starting to suffer now and I foresee some troubled times ahead. Thankfully we have a welfare safety net which has insulated the poor through these high times.

Also I just don't see the role of government as dictating to corporations and businesses what they can and can't do. Anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable progression of our political system, fighting it will do nothing. It seems best to me to begin to influence the evolution of that system now while such a thing is still possible. On that note I would like to share one particular government program which in my mind is particularly progressive.

We have something here called NRAS (National Rental Affordability Scheme). If you want a full understanding look it up, however I'll pass on some of the basics here now. Developers and landowners can apply for NRAS and are given some government incentives like higher housing density and some tax breaks. Very helpful if you are doing a major development because you can pack in some cheap housing at the earliest stage of development, offsetting the costs and providing some income. Rent is set at 80% of the market average and access to the accommodation is restricted to people below certain income and wealth thresholds.

This is an example of a passive method of easing the suffering of the poor. The governments role and expenses are minimal. The development company, landholder and even the tenants win. I'd prefer to see schemes such as this one over simply raising the minimum wage.

[Grog]

A higher minimum wage (or average wage even) pushes the cost of living up. That's a pretty basic conclusion to come to, if you can be charged more to live then companies will do so to increase their own profit margins. It happened here during the mining boom when people could go and work in the mines and earn 100k+. Now look at the cost of housing in Australia and also our exorbitant cost of living. On the tail end of the mining boom people are just starting to suffer now and I foresee some troubled times ahead. Thankfully we have a welfare safety net which has insulated the poor through these high times.

You are mixing up average wage and minimum wage. Minimum wage doesn't change the average wage to the extend you are referring too. It's not earning 100k+.

[Onep]

Who gives a fuck about the poltiical parties? They're just a diversion to disenfranchise all the peons anyways. We never had a say, and we never will.

[Jalpha]

Minimum wage doesn't change the average wage to the extend you are referring too. It's not earning 100k+.

I can't claim a supreme grasp of economics however being as the number of 100k+ jobs was limited, and raising the minimum wage across the board is likely to affect a much greater number of employees, it seems reasonable that a comparable rise in the average wage would be achieved. Even if not to such an extreme extent. I also think it a rather sanguine philosophy to believe that almost every business is not out to extract the maximum amount they can for the products and services they provide. Even if the average wage rises by a small amount the cost of living seems sure to rise proportionately.