From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:   
   >>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is   
   unproductive,   
   >>>>>> which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point   
   >>>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the   
   >>>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if   
   >>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce,   
   eh???   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid   
   >>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur   
   >>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Discourage consumprion, encourage income.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes.  THey   
   want   
   >>>>>> the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first.  But   
   >>>>>> tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be   
   >>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*   
   >>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> and fuck tariffs, eh??   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> #god   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the   
   >>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the   
   >>>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> fucking ??   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Usury is an integral part of this system.  No way could consumerism   
   >>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more   
   >>>> money.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> consumerism   
   >>>> tariffs   
   >>>> various tax schemes   
   >>>> politics   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Something is wrong with this system.  Perhaps we could think of a new   
   >>>> one that has not been tried before.  Because, so far, nothing works   
   >>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we   
   >>>> are left with after the others failed.   
   >>>   
   >>> Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by   
   >>> doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those   
   >>> ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is   
   >>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.   
   >>>   
   >>> This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to   
   >>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an   
   >>> increased chance of survival.   
   >>>   
   >>> This is how we've been behaving:   
   >>>   > see that things aren't working as well as we think they should   
   >>>   > design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of   
   >>> those involved in the repair)   
   >>>   > solution does not make everything better   
   >>>   > some things are even worse   
   >>>   > repeat   
   >>   
   >> So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like   
   >> libertarianism.   
   >   
   >Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I   
   >explained:   
      
   Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid.  As you   
   mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason   
   with intention to do things in a better way.  It occurs to me that   
   perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen.  You really   
   have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems.   
      
   >>   
   >>> If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks to   
   >>> make their own decisions based on their own motivations and incentives   
   >>> with as little oversight interference as possible, you're utopian or a   
   >>> bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)   
   >>>   
   >>> But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be no   
   >>> place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.   
   >>   
   >> Who are you and what have you done with wilson?   
   >   
   >Yeah, my views do evolve over time. If instead of projecting who you   
   >think I am onto me, and you actually listen, you might learn something   
   >about what I think.   
   >   
   >Shocking developments! More at 6!   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain   
   Don't get political with me young man   
   or I'll tie you to a railroad track and   
   <<>> to <<>>   
   Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?   
   dares: Ned   
   does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)