Sodium_nitride

Inflation is something that occurrd in even ancient class societies. It is noted in ancient societies that they originally issued silver coins for daily use, but as the centuries passed by successive governments debased the currency until copper coins were being used, then iron, then zinc and now today most money is digital, being produced at close to 0 cost.

The reason why Inflation happens in class societies is that the state debasing its currency, or banks increasing their lending (both of which cause inflation by jncreasing the money supply) are easy ways for the ruling class to generate financial power and keep liquidity in the economy up.

Another aspect to this is selection pressures for businesses. "Inflation" and "deflation" are statistical properties of an economy. That means that they exist as the sum of many small interacting parts (the prices of individual commodities).

If any business lowers their prices pre-maturely while everyone else keeps up their prices, the business will loose profit and thus shrink relative to others. This is a strong disincentive against deflating prices except in dire circumstances (recessions) where you can safely expect everyone else to also lower prices.

The US government is putting the boot on your necks too. The empire isn't run for your benefit, it is run at your expense.

The Chinese never found a way to make profit in spite of radically lower prices

Source? Your dreams?

Real late reply, but Kamala is a direct fascist.

Trump openly

This is the real problem that libs have with trump. He represents and fulfills all of their ideals, but without the pompadour.

Which one are you talking about?

Kissing g my homes good night

My logic (I don't live in the us but for the sake of argument, let's pretend I do) is that if a politician can commit a livestreamed genocide, and they win the election, it signals to politicians that there is no line they can cross that will make their campaign unviable.

It would be more ideal if the Democrats could have been punished for their war mongering years ago, but you never punish your representatives for crossing even the most egregious possible line, then you truly don't have any power over them and have fundamentally given up.

If tommorow, even 10% of the dems indicated in polls that they would not vote for kamala because of gaza, it would force the DNC to take a stronger stance on the issue because the race is too tight. If this had happened many months ago, the Democrats could have been forced in giving concessions. But the Democrat voter base has made sure that the demmocrat party has no need to give concessions. They have used themselves as meat waves to ensure that the genocide can continue smoothly.

Some academics became liberals after having flirted with Marxism. This is relevant why exactly? I mean, I can cite many great minds who remained Marxists and even advanced the theory. Ever heard of Paul Cockshott? Alan Contrell? David Zachariah? Emanuel Farjoun?

These guys (and some others) actually worked on Marxist economic theory and modernized it. They lived through the collapse of the USSR and remained steadfast in their beliefs. And I haven't talked about countless other minds in anthropology, history, contemporary social studies and philosophy who have used dialectical materialism as a foundation to achieve great results.

And so I want to emphasize something.

every single one of them gave up and became an egalitarian.

Is blatantly and literally false.

I can perform a completely independent experiments in my house.

And I can scream into the abyss, it's just as relevant. The absolute majority of actually useful and relevant science is performed socially for social purposes.

I make a hypothesis that my stove can boil 1L of water in 10 minutes.

You aren't even supposed to do a scientific experiment in the way you have just described. Or rather, there is neither a universally agreed upon scientific method, nor would your described experiment hold up to any standards.

An actual scientific experiment into water boiling would involve at the minimum

1. A model predicting the speed of boiling based on relevant variables
2. A collection of many data, and preferably corroborated by independent sources
3. Statistical analysis of the data (there are many methods to choose from) to gauge confidence in the model.
4. Publishing or proofreading of the results.

However, at each of these steps, you have a choice of how to approach the problem. And this depends on what you are trying to do, and what the best standards in the industry are. The process has also changed over time.

And this reveals the problem of many people's metaphysical approach to science. They treat it as if it were a platonic ideal, or floating constant in the human minds pace. In reality, "science" is an industry with its ever-changing standards, culture, interaction with the rest of society, and a million other complexities.

The broader field of academia and getting scientific papers published is more of a governance thing than science.

You cannot separate the 2. There is no pure science out there which can be done without "governance".

What the fuck are you talking about?