https://www.google.com/search?q=logic+101&oq=logic&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgCECMYJxiABBiKBTIHCAAQABiPAjIPCAEQLhgUGIcCGLEDGIAEMgwIAhAjGCcYgAQYigUyDAgDEAAYQxiABBiKBTIKCAQQABixAxiABDIHCAUQABiABDIKCAYQABixAxiABDINCAcQABiDARixAxiABDIMCAgQABhDGIAEGIoFMg8ICRAAGEMYsQMYgAQYigUyDwgKEAAYQxixAxiABBiKBTIKCAsQABixAxiABDIQCAwQABiDARixAxiABBiKBTIKCA0QLhixAxiABDIMCA4QABhDGIAEGIoF0gEIMjEyNmowajSoAg6wAgHxBcezGqeI447D&client=ms-android-charter-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
What does what you just said have anything to do with requiring musk not to pay his workers peanuts if he does have workers?
Can't you engage in trains of thought without spiraling into irrelevance?
Here, try again to engage my reasoning that you so masterfully evade...
.......
Wouldn't a more honest version of your arguments be that exploitation of the poor by the rich is ok as long as their relationship is consensual?
To you are all consensual relationships non exploitative? If not what are some examples of consensual relationships that are exploitative to you? Why dont you view as exploitative the effectively unlimited labor pool plus some peoples lack of options but to accept beans for pay?
......
So Elon Musk, the richest person in the world and almost a trillionaire, has a moral right to pay Marginalized people, with no significant job options, next to nothing for their services? If they have no real alternative options and the number of people in the labor pool is effectively unlimited at least globally... how could you not see that as exploitation
......
If propositions merely move all over the place, it wouldnt so much be reaching towards truth, so much as merely observing and recording beliefs as they evolve
It would be good for forming informed beliefs but maybe not so much objective beliefs. Is being informed the closest we can get to objectivity even if the objectivity cant be established? Isnt the whole point of this exercise to establish objectivity ?
Do you think the long term goal thousands of years would likely lead to more objective truth much like how stock prices generally go up... or would the truth of propositions merely fluctuate all over the place as cultures evolve and change ?
Oh so telling musk he he has to pay his workers ten dollars per hour instead of two, is exploiting him? Poor musk. Won't somebody think of the billionaires??
He has a moral right to pay nobody anything, employ nobody, create nothing, retire, and laugh at you all day long.
Elon will never be your bitch.
So when I read this, I read it as you have no real arguments when your views are examined critically. Just so you know, me not responding to this irrational reply of yours was my implicitly tacit response stating as much
Wouldn't a more honest version of your arguments be that exploitation of the poor by the rich is ok as long as their relationship is consensual?
To you are all consensual relationships non exploitative? If not what are some examples of consensual relationships that are exploitative to you? Why dont you view as exploitative the effectively unlimited labor pool plus some peoples lack of options but to accept beans for pay?
How would you deal with views changing over long periods? Ancient cultures were ok with man boy love, how does or would that be evaluated? This point is often brought up when arguing for non objective truth so how does it factor into your system
Is your system just majority rule? If not how do you credit arguments in the minority as still true? Just reading the options and risking a position?
The socialist govenor of NYC balanced a budget with a deficit of 12 billion. Republicans were saying the only fix was to use austerity measures in NYC
the word “bailout” can be misleading in this context.
There are two different questions here:
So your intuition is basically:
“If NYC already subsidizes the rest of the state overall, then getting extra state support isn’t necessarily an outside rescue — it may partly be NYC recapturing some of the value it already generates.”
That’s a legitimate argument and one many NYC officials make. Even critics of Mamdani often acknowledge NYC is the economic engine of the state. (NYC Comptroller's Office)
At the same time, critics would reply:
So the disagreement is partly semantic and partly about framing:
Both contain some truth depending on the level of analysis.
Have you ever looked up the definition of the word fascist? It means right wing authoritarians using force to enforce undemocratic decrees. It looks like you keep using the word wrong
So Elon Musk, the richest person in the world and almost a trillionaire, has a moral right to pay Marginalized people, with no significant job options, next to nothing for their services? If they have no real alternative options and the number of people in the labor pool is effectively unlimited at least globally... how could you not see that as exploitation?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-backed-30-minimum-wage-plan-could-backfire-unexpected-ways-experts-warn?fbclid=IwdGRjcARwoKhjbGNrBHCgKGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHmXAHG3j8by3bhwXoagErgSnECZSzse0HXzjIJJqj5oK2f79qHe7t6-cvqcr_aem_5bBo-CizPqQ12bTmmIyWWA
Sweet spot is probably 12.50 territory for minimum wage
And one of the key points isnt that it'll take too long for the rich to feel the pinch... its actually also less efficient that way, waiting for them. The market isnt always more efficient
Your framework is close to what many economists would call a **technology-neutral industrial policy** rather than a command-and-control energy policy. The core idea is:
* Government *does* intervene to accelerate the transition.
* But it intervenes by rewarding outcomes rather than prescribing one specific technology.
That avoids some of the strongest criticisms from both sides.
A coherent version of your argument could look something like this:
> Government should help accelerate the transition away from expensive and environmentally harmful energy sources, but it should avoid narrowly favoring one technology such as electric cars alone. Instead, incentives should be based on measurable outcomes like reduced emissions, higher efficiency, lower pollution, or reduced fossil fuel dependence. This allows markets and innovators to compete to discover the best solutions while still recognizing that society benefits from transitioning faster than the market might do on its own.
Your reasoning has several layers behind it.
### 1. The “don’t pick winners and losers” critique has some merit
You are recognizing a legitimate conservative concern:
* Governments can misjudge technologies.
* Politicians are not always good venture capitalists.
* Subsidizing the wrong thing can lock in inferior systems.
Historically, this has happened before:
* Some biofuel policies distorted food markets.
* Certain solar firms failed after receiving subsidies.
* Different battery chemistries rose and fell unpredictably.
So there is a real argument for:
* broad tax credits,
* carbon pricing,
* emissions targets,
* efficiency standards,
instead of:
* “EVs good, everything else bad.”
For example, a neutral system might reward:
* EVs,
* hydrogen,
* synthetic fuels,
* advanced nuclear,
* geothermal,
* carbon capture,
* high-efficiency public transit,
* or technologies not yet invented—
as long as they meet performance goals.
That preserves innovation competition.
### 2. Markets alone may transition too slowly
This is where your argument departs from laissez-faire conservatism.
You are basically describing a **collective action problem** and a **timing problem**.
Markets respond strongly to:
* present prices,
* short-term incentives,
* immediate profitability.
But energy infrastructure changes slowly:
* factories,
* power grids,
* pipelines,
* vehicle fleets,
* housing stock—
all take decades to replace.
So if society waits until fossil fuel scarcity, geopolitical instability, or climate damage becomes economically overwhelming, then:
* energy prices spike,
* poorer households get hit hardest,
* industries scramble chaotically,
* and transition costs become more painful.
You are arguing that gradual acceleration now may reduce larger pain later.
That is a pragmatic argument, not just an environmental one.
### 3. You are also pointing to unequal economic resilience
This is an important observation:
> Wealthier people can absorb rising energy costs longer than poorer people can.
So if transition only happens when markets finally force it:
* affluent households adapt first,
* lower-income people suffer longer from:
* fuel costs,
* heating costs,
* pollution,
* climate instability,
* insurance increases,
* infrastructure damage.
In economic terms, you are arguing the market signal arrives “too late” for vulnerable populations.
### 4. The strongest version of your argument is probably not “alternative energy is always cheaper”
That point is partly true but needs nuance.
Some renewable energy sources are now extraordinarily cheap:
* utility solar,
* onshore wind,
* some battery storage.
But:
* intermittency,
* transmission,
* storage,
* mineral supply chains,
* industrial heat,
* aviation,
* grid stability—
still create real costs and engineering challenges.
A stronger formulation is:
> Many alternative energy technologies are already becoming cost-competitive or cheaper in major sectors, and strategic public policy can accelerate economies of scale, infrastructure buildout, and innovation while reducing long-term transition costs.
That version is harder to attack because it avoids oversimplifying.
### 5. Your overall position is actually fairly centrist economically
You are combining:
* market competition,
* innovation incentives,
* skepticism of central planning,
* recognition of externalities,
* long-term planning,
* and social stability concerns.
That lands somewhere between:
* pure laissez-faire conservatism,
* and heavy-handed industrial planning.
Economists across ideological lines often support versions of this through:
* carbon taxes,
* technology-neutral clean energy credits,
* R&D subsidies,
* infrastructure investment,
* or pollution pricing.
Your emphasis on:
> “reward outcomes, not specific technologies”
is probably the key principle tying your position together.
Plus the global warming thing too. We should speed the process up
The government should give tax credits to alternative energy. Except, they shouldnt give them just for certain technologies like electric cars. Conservatives are right about that, they shoukdnt be picking winners and losers. If the government picked wrong they be subsidizing an inferior technology. But conservstives are wrong that the government shouldnt have a hand in transitioning. Fir one we know that alternative energy is cheaper, so its all around a win win for everyone. Fir two if we wait until the rich start transituoning it might be too late. By the time they start feeling the pinch of prices, evrryone else will feel it even more, the whole time we could have been transitioning everyone else will be feeling pinched
It would be pretty crazy do you agree to charge the makers of gpt with murder type charges? Aiding and abetting is one thing but the line from that to more serious chargers isnt clear. Plus what other harms could gpt cause? Some are foreseeable and some aren't. Aiding in murder would be foreseeable but whether it was specifically something the makers should have lnown I dont know.
Thats the standard theyd use whether it was 'reasonably foreseeable'
Why is your automatic response that they'll move no matter how small the tax is?
Some states have wealth taxes and the rich largely would rather pay it and get the perks of living there. Id imagine a national tax if it was small enough would be similar
You're one promoting fancy schmancy loop holes, im just trying to fix it. Its not my fault that you struggle with the math of percentages
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/openai-sued-chatgpts-alleged-role-guiding-fsu-shooter-rcna344443
I dunno thats a tough one. I could see chatgpt having moral responsibility in aiding the crime but im not sure about legal. The question comes down to whether the ai engaged in 'aiding and abetting' the shooter, and i do see that that could potentially involve giving advice to a shooter. I dunno how clear the shooters intentions should have been to the ai bot. The prosecutor says an actual human would be charged with a crime for what the ai did, and that might be true.
I could see arguing that the shooters intentions were clear and even if they weren't clear to the bot the intentions should have been clear, as itd be clear to any human. I suppose itd boil down to whether ai should be held to the same standard as a human. And even if that standard isnt even considered at all, strictly speaking the bot gave advice to the shooter, point blank, though i do think the standard involved should be considered in the deliberation
My only issue with arguing that the rich already pay so much and shouldn't have to pay more... is 1. Historically the usa brings in about the same revenue as it always has but that tax burden has shifted from the wealthy to the middle class. 2. So much wealth creation including both assets and income is shielded from taxes. Some billionaires go their lives paying a smaller percent of their income than their secretaries then find loop holes to prevent ever getting meaningfully taxed on it
I just showed you how to balance the budget or shrink deficit or pay debt off. Whichever the goal is. Merely asserting its not possible after I broke down the math involved, isnt an argument
First ask every government agency except maybe social security to find ten percent of its spending that can be cut. This is a modest doable amount and is a way better strategy than trump and musks ax to the budget strategy.
Heres ai generated ways to raise revenue through tax increases for the rest
| Proposal | Very Rough Annual Revenue
| 2% wealth tax above $10M | ~$700B–$1.6T
| 1% wealth tax on $500k–$10M | ~$350B–$700B
| 20% increase in income taxes on top 10% | ~$250B–$450B
| 10% increase on 80th–90th percentile | ~$40B–$100B
| Estate tax expansion + 20% increase | ~$50B–$120B
| End stepped-up basis above $1M | ~$20B–$80B annually equivalent
| **Total** | **~$1.4T–$3.0T+ annually**
Increasing someone's income taxes twenty percent might sound like a lot but its actually modest... if their original effective tax rate is 25 percent, its only a 5 percentage point increase
Of course, regulating the cost of government Healthcare programs is essential as is finding ways to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. While the governments at it they should do so in the private sector too given so much savings can be found. We dont need universal healthcare, we need to just get the cost thsts already provided under control. This healthcare approach would supercharge our economy and cost savings.
But with or without tackling healthcare the deficit can very feasible get managed with incremental moves. Its not beyond repair yet, which is a significant statement to make in itself
Yes its possible to earn a billion dollars. But acceptance of that doesnt diminish her point that billionaires do this through society's and other peoples help, and when looking at social justice, that all is still significant
Plus that basket of deplorables comment by hillary really was uncalled for. It hurt the feelings of trumps base. and was too toxic compared to our dear leaders clean record on the point of insults
To oversimplify it, thats generally what happens. Democrats think things should be done by the government to help people but they cant agree to what and when they do agree its often dysfunctional. Republicans dont think anything in particular should be done to help people they become the party of saying no to things then if anything they want to tear the whole thing down then they become the party of dysfunction from another angle
.... from Hillary's emails
Amiright??
The wealthy evade taxes by keeping their income very low and keeping money and source of revenue in wealth that isnt taxed.
The far left like Bernie wants a five percent wealth tax to get around the issue. Local states like California want to do the same.
The issues, are that 5 percent is a major blow and I could see the wealthy leaving the country over it or not coming here to begin with. And states are bad for this because they can just switch states.
But two percent seems feasible federally. Not as many won't give up all they have here to evade plus this isnt just one state, its national. Its low like one percent is low but not quite down all the way at 1 percent
I feel like sorta a bigot even making this argument as a liberal open minded fellow. But its my honest belief and sometimes I have I have stupid ideas so I figured id stress test it
I used to think this was crazy talk or at least I didnt know where it was coming from or what to think.
But islam is dangerous. Some of their jihad talk is dangerous and I know theres different interpretations of it but just the fact that its so prevalent the blood lust is important. Even beyond holy wars the Quran says to cut hands off enemies and the main focus isnt struggling for love, the greater good.
So that extends culturally too. I just dont want a clash of cultures here and our cultures are too different and values too
They say diversity is a strength, but thats not always true. Sometimes its not true.
I know these ideas r loaded with complex social and political ideas but can you state simply by what metric and how on earth trump is better than the dem party or recent candidates?
The only way I can see people thinking that is that they are just uninformed. Of course theres ideologues who are informed and agree with you, but they r a small minority
