Based on your arguments I assume you’re against minimum wage too.

That wouldn’t be accurate. I am for global taxes and minimum wages to stop the whole “we’ll just move the company elsewhere” bullshit all together

Yes, to some extend they can achieve that, if they are high enough to cancel out the wage differences.

But they have a lot of additional effects. Companies with small margins that import ressources will have to raise prices to stay profitable, others will do it because they can riding the wave of those that must. All in all tarrifs just raise prices.

Thus the nominally raised wages stagnate in buying power.

So either the wages stagnate without the tarrifs because the work follows the cheap labour or they stagnate because tarrifs raise the prices alongside with the rising wages. The tarrifs achieve nothing for the buying power of consumers.

The argument was that wages rise if labour is scarce. My counter is that labour will just be moved outside with the people, thus countering the scarcity, thus making wages stagnate rather than increase.

Somehow tariffs are supposed to balance this out. Which is really the nonsense in all of this.

Yeah but that involves collecting domestic intel, not foreign intel

You must have missed my response to that

https://lemm.ee/post/47845390/16368689

Not if the work follows the workers outside of the US

By making the products more expensive while your wages stagnate? How’s that balancing anything out?

They can move production to places with available labour. You know for example the places you deported all that labour to.

While that’s true, the capitalists where getting richer and richer even before the big economic growth. They don’t really care. Also, the wage increases had to be hard fought for by a united working class. I don’t see american workers unite right now to fight the rich.

Germany: We are having an early election for the federal government end of February so the media is filled with political intrigues

Setting aside all the other issues, if you think creating a worker shortage (which might increase wages short term) will do anything good for your economy: it won’t.

Historically economic growth is pretty closely tied to population growth. More hands create more value. Removing hands will make the remaining hands more valuable but there is still less value created. And the people that hold economic power aren’t going to give up their share easily, so one way or another it will eventually mean even less for the workers.

Das “lustige” ist ja, dass die sich nicht selber aussuchen was ihr Auftrag ist. Der Auftrag kommt aus dem Rundfunkgesetz und den Staatsverträgen. Da ist soweit ich weiß u.A. auch Unterhaltung genannt.

Auch den Beitrag der notwendig ist diesen Auftrag zu erfüllen bestimmen die nicht selbst. Den legt die KEF fest.

Ich find’s ehrlich ziemlich lächerlich wie sich alle über ARD und ZDF aufregen obwohl die für die ganzen Probleme relativ wenig können.

Ich find deine Kritik durchaus korrekt, ich finde auch da läuft zu viel Blödsinn. Mir fällt da insbesondere noch der sauteure Fußball und anderer Sport ein. Die Kritik kann aber eben nicht an die Sender gehen sondern muss an die Politik gehen.

Entschuldigung, das war natürlich nur das Budget für einen Entwurf vom Prototypen. Das richtige Produkt gibt’s dann für ca 500Mio und dann auf ewig 10Mio Wartungskosten im Jahr.

Klingt so ja. Ich glaub es ist Zeit mal eine Firma zu gründen und Kontakte zu meinen lokalen Behörden aufzubauen. Ich kann den Anschluss zu dem NOOTS per KI Blockchain hocheffizient und natürlich 150% vom BSI zertifiziert aufbauen! Kostet nur 10Mio€

I’m saying that modern practitioners of Shinto don’t consider the emperor divine.

So they were able to continue to live their culture without being individually forced to do anything? Great, then thats not genocide.

What an interesting perspective. So what you’re saying is, if the Chinese government were to recognize Islam as one of its major, protected religions, but restrict certain radical teachings and versions of it, then it wouldn’t be genocide.

The better analogy would be to allow the chinese government to force one person to say “I am not divine”. Let’s say they were able to revive the prophet and make him say these words. Yes that would shatter the faith of a lot of people and how they deal with that is pretty much no-ones business. And it wouldn’t be genocide if they all turned away from their faith after that.

Because thats what reeducation camps are for. To erase the original culture. Doesn’t work as well with skin color.

While there are many systemic issues that result in the disproportionate mass incarceration of African Americans, one needs to recognize this isn’t done to eradicate them. The US needs and uses them to make the poor fight each other rather than unite and fight the rich.

One also needs to recognize that the US does not incarerate them just for being black. They have created a system that forces poor people into criminality and that also makes african americans disproportionally poor. It’s deeply racist but there are still differences.

But I’m glad you agree it’s a violent thing to do.

How is incarcerating a significant portion of an ethnic group non-violent?

If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we’re allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I’m not sure it’s obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don’t meet your definition.

I think it is pretty obvious. Is force involved, e.g. making it punishable to use your inhereted language, incarcerting people for praying to their god, taking your kids away for teaching them about your culture, …? Then it might be a genocide. Force does not need to be lethal to still be able to eradicate a culture.

Are other cultures influencing your culture by existing and interacting with your culture and the cultures change because of that? Then no, this definitely isn’t genocide. Which should answer the other “questions” you posed. If you are a minority in another culture you might have a harder time keeping your culture alive. But as long as there aren’t any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn’t a problem there.

The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing

No, they did not. The emperor’s divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. They didn’t have the option? They didn’t do it? And if the divinity of the emperor wasn’t the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?