If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Let us understand the nature of this top 1%: Most of their wealth is actually working day in and day out to sustain the economy from which the 99% legitimately benefit. The actual money which the top 1% spend on themselves is not very much, and even if this latter amount is snatched away from them and distributed to the rest, it will be pennies that the 99% will get...
The other aspect is that the ultra-rich can 'buy' the politicians with their wealth and make them take unfair steps / create unfair laws, that enable the ultra-rich to keep on exploitingly increasing their wealth. In Libertarianism, the politicians would not have the power to indulge in such corruption.
..........
You are saying 2 things here:
(1) Libertarianism is actually plutocracy,
and
(2) Libertarianism will "automagically" make corruption of the political class disappear
(1) is proof of the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing I have warned about concerning Libertarianism, and (2) is hilarious and presented with no supporting evidence.
Any particular economy must seek to meet as many societal needs as possible. Some economic systems are more successful at this than others (E.g. - Socialism is more successful than Capitalism).
But certain societal needs are based on other than pure economics.
These needs must be tweaked into the economy via Government redistribution legislation.
(2) Libertarianism will "automagically" make corruption of the political class disappear
(1) is proof of the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing I have warned about concerning Libertarianism, and (2) is hilarious and presented with no supporting evidence.
Capitalism can lead to plutocracy. Libertarianism prevents plutocracy.
Power corrupts (in politics) and Libertarianism makes corruption disappear by immensely reducing politicians' power.... nothing magical about it except that it is so good that it appears almost magical!
Not a government of politicians whose aim is to make as much money as possible while they are in power, and win votes by hook or by crook to maintain/gain power. We need government by individuals co-operating with like-minded individuals to take actions for the betterment of society, without violating the Natural Law.
Any particular economy must seek to meet as many societal needs as possible. Some economic systems are more successful at this than others (E.g. - Socialism is more successful than Capitalism).
Evidence for this claim?
There are no examples of a socialistic economy that is working.
Canada is not a socialist country. Sweden is not a socialist country. Denmark is not a socialist country. All three are basically capitalist economies with social safety nets and high taxes to support that safety net.
If you want to look for a socialist economy you have to look at Venuzuela, Cuba and perhaps a few other places which don't come to mind immediately. There is a very high cost of a socialistic economy.
Mitterrand began as a 'commie lunatic' (Trump's very apt description of Mamdani :-) ), and quickly had to abandon his socialist agenda to save France's economy.
As quoted in JACOBIN, 2022:
The Defeat of François Mitterrand’s Reform Program Still Haunts the French Left
The basic story, as normally told, is this: In May 1981, the French left came to power for the first time since the foundation of the Fifth Republic in 1958. In an atmosphere of euphoria that accompanied their election, the new government pursued a radical agenda that sought to boost economic growth and employment through increased consumption, public spending, redistribution, new labor rights, and a more interventionist industrial policy.
However, France was seeking to expand while the international economy was contracting. The boost to domestic consumption also failed to tackle deeper structural problems in French industry. France faced high inflation and a deteriorating balance of payments situation.
In this context, the government had the option of tackling its balance of payments crises by carrying out a substantial devaluation of the franc, thereby boosting its competitiveness. Yet France was a member of the EMS. Without the agreement of other EMS members for such a devaluation, the government would have needed to leave its Exchange Rate Mechanism and allow the value of the franc to fluctuate with international markets.
This question became acute in March 1983. In what turned out to be a definitive decision, the government opted to stay in the EMS. A new “plan de rigueur,” or austerity package, sought instead to correct the French balance of payments by drastically reducing consumption and the government’s budget deficit.
According to the standard narrative, this choice was a clear and historic one. If France had left the EMS, its government could and would have continued its agenda of pursing socialist policies that prioritized growth and employment, behind a wall of increased protectionism to shield it from the constraints of the international economy. By staying within the EMS, it chose to align itself with a neoliberal agenda of austerity, deflation, and economic liberalization, and abandon the vision which it had pursued from 1981.
Sweden is not a socialist country. Denmark is not a socialist country.... are basically capitalist economies with social safety nets and high taxes to support that safety net.
And everyone pays the high taxes, as they are not as progressive as elsewhere....
"government's power to steal from the 49% to bribe the 51% into voting for it"
Stop it. I call out your BS again.
Stop drawing this economic artificial line at 49-51%. The 49 and 51 percentile people are in the same economic boat.
The real divide is between the majority 99% and the obscenely wealthy 1%.
The top 1% "the billionaires" have more wealth, far beyond any notion of equity, with a system designed to exaggerate their wealth over time. The board game monopoly demonstrates this perfectly, eventually everyone goes bankrupt except for the sole winner, who has it all.
Stop drawing this economic artificial line at 49-51%. The 49 and 51 percentile people are in the same economic boat.
The real divide is between the majority 99% and the obscenely wealthy 1%.
The top 1% "the billionaires" have more wealth, far beyond any notion of equity, with a system designed to exaggerate their wealth over time. The board game monopoly demonstrates this perfectly, eventually everyone goes bankrupt except for the sole winner, who has it all.
Relax, Bob.
You are right about the 49% and 51%, but politicians are only interested in securing 51% of the votes... and hence the divide...
In Monopoly, there are limits to options on the small board... unlike in real life.
And the system we have is truly designed for the ultra rich to keep on getting richer by bribing our corrupt politicians, into creating a system wherein competition by those not ultra rich is very difficult...
Marxism, however, is worse!
Relax, Bob.
You are right about the 49% and 51%, but politicians are only interested in securing 51% of the votes... and hence the divide...
In Monopoly, there are limits to options on the small board... unlike in real life.
And the system we have is truly designed for the ultra rich to keep on getting richer by bribing our corrupt politicians, into creating a system wherein competition by those not ultra rich is very difficult...
Marxism, however, is worse!
I hope everyone enjoyed Canada Day yesterday. I found at this year’s celebrations the cheers for Canada were even more boisterous. No doubt a reaction to the attacks from our southern neighbour. Hopefully they can prevent passage of the big ugly bill, which lowers taxes on the wealthy and further erodes health care for the poor. Dilip, we seem to agree the billionaires have more than enough, or do you not agree? If you were in the US congress, would you vote for or against the big ugly bill?
I hope everyone enjoyed Canada Day yesterday. I found at this year’s celebrations the cheers for Canada were even more boisterous. No doubt a reaction to the attacks from our southern neighbour. Hopefully they can prevent passage of the big ugly bill, which lowers taxes on the wealthy and further erodes health care for the poor. Dilip, we seem to agree the billionaires have more than enough, or do you not agree? If you were in the US congress, would you vote for or against the big ugly bill?
Unfortunately, the bill does not make it easier for the non-ultra-rich to compete as entrepreneurs with the ultra-rich...
Tweet
Comment