FuckyWucky [none/use name]

@ FuckyWucky @hexbear.net

Posts

83
Comments

842
Joined

3 yr. ago

Pro-stealing art without attribution

Moderating

Palestine lemm.ee

46m ago

Brexit was bad actually, says new poll
Jump
FuckyWucky [none/use name] @hexbear.net 46m ago

Ikr. It's unfortunate since the main reason UK went from bad to worse was its austerity regime, Brexit combined with that made it much worse.

Chapotraphouse @hexbear.net

FuckyWucky [none/use name] @hexbear.net

12h ago

DOI cracks down on stickers covering Trump's face on national park passes

www.sfgate.com /national-parks/article/sticker-covering-trump-void-national-park-pass-21278091.php

1d ago

My daughter has a disability – the lack of empathy in Britain is mind-blowing

Jump

FuckyWucky [none/use name] @hexbear.net 1d ago

The "taxpayer money" discourse is most potently disgusting in the U.K. in part due to media. Everything is about "MUH TAXPAYER MONEY, IAM MORE IMPORTANT BECAUSE I PAY TAXES"

Cw: Nazi ableist propaganda

Very selfish Nazi-adjacent discourse.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/04/taxpayer-dollars-the-origins-of-austeritys-racist-catchphrase/

Denmark giving transfers to Greenland increases demand for Danish goods themselves. It's similar to Germans whining about them subsidising "lazy" Greeks. That's not how capitalism works, under it spending of any kind can create employment, and imports by Greeks were financing Germany's low fiscal deficit, since current surpluses were high while maintaining employment.

So under capitalism purely looking from "selfish" economic perspective :

Denmark gains demand for its goods form Greenland increasing its own output and employment.
Greenland gets access to more goods and services than it would be able to if it were independent.

This isn't anti-independence, just that Greenland losing out on transfers will likely reduce its imports. But at the same time, Greenland having its own currency may also allow it to spend in ways it can't currently ie improve productivity, employment so the loss of transfers may be somewhat offset.

Quite different from say, USSR giving transfers to Cuba. Since USSR operated under a centrally planned full employment economy, any transfer meant loss of resources but no higher employment (since it was already at full employment). Very different from capitalism.

In this case:

The USSR lost access to oil and other goods which it could've sold to other countries for foreign exchange or real goods/services while not gaining additional employment.
Cuba gained acesss to real goods from the USSR allowing it to have higher standard of living.