The major shareholders have voted down your proposal.

It seems like you already understand some of the limitations of capitalism. Look into why regulation has gradually been rolled back in the US since the 70s. Why did politicians start to agree with corporate execs demands for lower regulation. Keywords to look up - regulatory capture.

On a separate point, there’s plenty of famines that have occurred in capitalist economies due to capitalist exploitation - that is make more money, at the cost of of creating a famine. Some estimates put the deaths due to famines under capitalism higher than those under socialism. I used to simply know only of the famines under socialism and not know of the famines under capitalism.

Finally the capitalism we live in since the Great Depression is significantly different than the capitalism before it. Socialists, actual Marxists in western counties, yes the US included, were actively involved in the policies that created the welfare states across the west along with the regulatory regime. Some of FDR’s economic advisors were Marxian economists.

That was the compromise to save capitalism from imminent worker revolution. The unregulated, no-safety-net version of the system had lead to the conditions for such revolution. The socialist policies that averted the revolution in have slowly been dismantled over time and the system is reverting to the pre-Great Depression state. Faster in some countries than others.

If you want to reform capitalism to the point where it can no longer revert to economic liberalism (free market fundamentalism), you’d have to almost completely eliminate wealth accumulation. You could only do that by changing the ownership of the means of production. E.g. all employees in all corporations become equal owners (or controllers) of the machines and therefore the decisions on sharing the wealth those machines produce, instead of those decisions being made by a tiny number of major shareholders. You’d also have to significantly expand the industries operated by the government. At that point you end up with socialism. And yes socialism doesn’t mean central planning and no markets. Capitalism doesn’t mean no central planning and just markets. We do plenty of central planning in capitalist economies across governments and large corporations.

I’m not asking you to change your mind today. Just pointing out a few things to look into in case you haven’t.

I wonder if this is really true. It feels true, and I can certainly see proportional representation being more resistant. Certainly more than FPTP. However I’ve grown up in a country with PR that’s pretty well captured by the owner class. Maybe the specific conditions in that country made that easier to happen. Perhaps the economic shock therapy helped that.

I light up my dungeon with 11W, 1600lm bulbs. Gotta keep that circadian rhythm adjusted.

That wouldn’t happen under current cost of living conditions and with this administration. And if it does happen at some point, well that’s the positive path out of this mess no? I don’t think there’s a solution that doesn’t involve getting most Americans decent paying work.

The Economist nearly spelling out the truth there.

So still inheritance, just consolidated, going to another nepo baby.

True if you believe strategic vote is a large proportion. I don’t. I believe the majority of voters vote based on party leaders, past preferences, etc. I don’t believe strategic vote can make up a 40% difference. I believe strategic vote shift to ONDP would mean PCs stay at 45% while OLP and ONDP get to something closer to 35% and 15%, or 30/20. The PCs still win, with higher margin. That’s my guess. For the parties to switch positions in such riding, I believe it’ll take significant campaigning by the ONDP candidate as well as Marit Stiles positioning herself as a significantly better leader than whoever heads the OLP, and clear, bold populist policies. If such a change occurs, the informed strategic vote will shift accordingly. If the polls in my riding showed 5-10% advantage for the ONDP I’d have voted for them.

This thinking is flawed if applied in general without any consideration of the dynamics in a particular riding. I don’t know how many people think and vote this way without checking their riding’s numbers. Perhaps many. In my riding it was the right move, as the NDP candidate got under 5%. Given how three seats were won by less than 40 votes, I think there’s some validity in informed strategic vote. But voting for OLP instead of ONDP “strategically” without checking riding numbers is very much flawed and I hope these people, along with traditional OLP voters would do something else the next time around.

Go for it. The lines have been drawn.

Lisa’s a bit confused.

Mine was also very close PC/OLP with very small proportion to ONDP. I voted OLP in the hope to flip the seat. Failed, but even if all ONDP voters to have helped, the PC candidate would have scraped by a small margin. Can’t blame anyone. We tried.🥹

Exactly. The 905 probably doesn’t even know where those bike lanes are, or where the border of the Greenbelt is. They go on the highway, get to downtown to their office or for a Blue Jays game, either case exit ASAP in fear of the “crazy people downtown” and get back to their house in West Mississauga, and breathe a sigh of relief. For these voters, homeless people don’t exist, bike lanes exist only to be cursed on some streets in Mississauga, but at least the streets have 2-3 lanes for them. Healthcare has always been shit and you’re not going to the hospital every day. They hear GO train is being improved. They are okay. Their material conditions are fine. No need for change and especially not during uncertainty like the one created by the US clown car.

Yes it wasn’t all for nothing for sure but it’s a minimal result for the organizing and voting effort. I’d prefer people to shift to the Ontario NDP instead of working even harder to get the OLP in a better position. Reason being that even if the OLP forms a government, it will likely not be sufficiently different than the PCs as to significantly improve life in the province. We remember Kathleen Wynne, we remember Dalton. Things were better but they still were underfunding healthcare, freezing public wages, sold public assets, and so on. Just less than the PCs. Don’t get me wrong I’ll take an OLP government any day over PC, but I’ll take an ONDP government over either of them. It’s why I vote strategically when the fight isn’t between ONDP/OLP in my riding. With that said I’m not sure that even the ONDP would do significant enough changes to get people stuck on them for a decade or longer.

Oh well, we tried. At least he lost some seats, there wasn’t much vote split and the NDP held onto most of their seats (25) with 18% of the vote while the Liberals won 12-14 with 29%. This is the third time in a row where voting Ontario Liberal didn’t produce any substantial result. Perhaps it will be the time when a large number of voters flip.

I came here to say this. This doesn’t look like replacing the air controller work, it’s about the comm network. And it’s making it dependent on fucking micro satellites, holy dumb shovel buckets.

Less factory farm runoff in the lettuce. 😂

I’m also looking forward to working a couple of days a week, training and coaching young developers.

If there’s nothing stopping me from cramming more shoebox units in place of that second staircase you let me remove, I will do just that and pocket the margins.

BTW, my building has two staircases per floor, with 10 1400sqft units per floor, with fine ventilation. It was built before I was born.

But yes about the 4-6 rises. Even a bit higher should be fine, as long as complexities are kept low.

Buy French? Build local?