Total posts: 1,890
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Complete and total bullshit.
That describes the relevance of your retort to what I was saying, yes.
You downplayed my argument as mere hair splitting, so I responded with 2 sets of contrasting examples explaining the significance (the opposite of hair splitting) followed by reemphasizing how the same logic of those two examples applies to the example at hand.
But I was talking about the structural similarity between a president and that president’s administration. That is the hair splitting I was referring to, not what you were talking about, which was proper vs improper reasons for the approval process.
8 paragraphs in response to your one sentence talking point rebuttal all for you to tell me I didn't respond to what you said. That's absurd.
It’s basic English.
“Regarding improper procedure, I already addressed that in post 40 and 43.”
No, you really didn't. Your response was to simply point to "subject to federal approval" as if that ends the conversation. It doesn't, because you're appealing to something you yourself don't believe.
Hmm… looks like I DO need to mention it a third time for the reading or, even worse, the honesty impaired. To reiterate from my posts 40 and 43:
“To be fair, I will say that there is probably a bigger legal burden to uphold with disapproval than simple approval. That will be for the courts to decide.”
“”subject to federal approval” means exactly what it says. That fact means there is no violation of state sovereignty here, unless the courts find that the DOT is disapproving the measure for improper reasons, as I have already acknowledged.”
Again, this is basic English.
you're appealing to something you yourself don't believe.
What are you even talking about? It would help if you actually said what that “something” is rather than making fuzzy references.
The topic of this conversation isn't whether the government has the right to cancel the program, we're talking about whether it is right. So repeating over and over again that the program was subject to federal approval does nothing to address the topic of this thread.
Maybe if you could construct a syllogism or even a polysyllogism making your case clearly. So far, you have hollow accusations and ipse dixit (ie “because I say so”) fallacy.
If Biden had tweeted his approval over his DOT approving congestion tolls, that would mean what to you exactly?Well, if he ended the tweet with "long live the king" I would have definitely taken issue with that.
How about “God save the Queen, man!”
Putting on my small government states rights hat, I would not have been the least bit concerned over the Biden administration approving the program because approval means allowing the state to carry out its own solution to its own problem. It's when you deny it that there is legitimate concern, depending on the reason why you denied it. For an extensive dive into why that is, see my last post.
Yes, and I said that is for the courts to decide earlier. You know, the experts on legal procedure. And you just denied I acknowledged that, so I had to copy/paste me acknowledging it. The things I have to do because of your inevitable antics…
A president of the United States determines that a traffic program is an improper use of federally subsidized roads - Procedural and therefore Proper (setting aside why the hell would a president involve himself personally in this decision, especially after it has already been made and the program already took effect)Yet you are crying foul over this possibility and wondering why small government conservatives aren’t calling this out.No. You didn't read the example. Note the bold.
The courts will decide if this was proper procedure or not. Not you or me.
“Price gouging doesn’t qualify as an improper use of federally subsidized roads?”
The toll into NY from Jersey and into Queens from the Bronx was up to $16 the last time I crossed them. The congesting pricing toll in lower Manhatten is $9. This is a terrible argument.Also that's not even price gouging. Price gouging is when you inflate the cost of something as a means of exploiting people for profit.
Here’s a definition of price gouging:
“an act or instance of charging customers too high a price for goods or services, especially when demand is high and supplies are limited.”
The shoe seems to fit.
“You conflate prosecutorial independence with a regulatory approval matter. It is simply laughable.”
You are the one who asserted that the structural hierarchy of an agency reporting to a president means there is no difference between that agency making a decision and the president making that decision himself. So all I did was adopt that same logic to the justice department. If the logic holds then it doesn't make a difference whether we're talking about prosecutorial independence because according to your stated argument there is no such thing.
So, you’re doubling down on laughable. Do you even know what prosecutorial independence is and why it’s independent? That sending someone to jail is quite different from turning down a toll program? “These two things are not the same.”
My gripe is that republicans are hypocrites. This example is a clear indication of that.
But you haven’t constructed a cogent argument to that end (that, or I have dismantled it already.) Doubling down on your baseless accusation instead. It’s true because you say so.
Not hard to understand.
Your posts usually show intelligence, creativity and adaptability but are also fluid (as a result of said adaptability) and therefor lack consistency, clarity, and rigor. It actually seems as though your arguments thrive on murkiness and goalpost creep so that you can readily accuse your opponent of strawmanning you when your fuzzy and fluid argument is inevitably impossible to pin down. Using a rigorous syllogistic format would certainly help in making your arguments more concrete, which might explain why you avoid doing so.
If you insist on avoiding the construction of your argument/rebuttal in a syllogistic format, I will have to assume that either you are unable or unwilling to do so. In either case, your argument can then be disregarded as too unclear and incoherent to address effectively.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Suspicion confirmed, but I do have a lingering question about your claim here:
- 'Best' assumes a reference of conduct in war. There is none anywhere in US Law, or for any other western country.
I’m not sure what you even mean with this claim— what about international laws of warfare, the US Law of War, and US Rules of Engagement?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The average American also works more than people in prison. The solution? Put more people in prison. Vote Republican.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The difference between a political decision and a procedural decision is not hair splitting. The basis of the decision is the very thing that often determines whether it is proper or not.A manager decides to award a contract to Party A because they're the best suited for the job - Proper.A manager decides to award a contract to Party A because their spouse owns the company so they can benefit personally - Corruption.A federal judge rules against Party A because their position is found to be in violation of the constitution - ProperA federal judge rules against Party A because he belongs to an advocacy group and thought this would be a great opportunity to advance his cause - ImproperThis isn't hair splitting.
It is unfortunate that you spent this much of your precious free time not addressing anything I said in the post you’re responding to. Regarding improper procedure, I already addressed that in post 40 and 43. Do you need me to mention it a third time? If Biden had tweeted his approval over his DOT approving congestion tolls, that would mean what to you exactly?
A president of the United States determines that a traffic program is an improper use of federally subsidized roads - Procedural and therefore Proper (setting aside why the hell would a president involve himself personally in this decision, especially after it has already been made and the program already took effect)
Yet you are crying foul over this possibility and wondering why small government conservatives aren’t calling this out. So, conservatives nationwide didn’t call out the Biden Administration for approving it, but you expect them to call out a Republican administration for disapproving it? To the point of being hypocritical for not doing so?
A president of the United States decides to cancel a city's traffic program because he decided the program was not best for the city even though the local officials who were elected to deal with these very problems determined otherwise - Political and therefore Improper (if you believe in states rights and small government)
Price gouging doesn’t qualify as an improper use of federally subsidized roads? (Hence, my response above)
This isn't hair splitting, and if it were Biden personally interfering in a red states affair's in this exact way you wouldn't need me to write a 20 paragraph thesis to get it.
No, I would see the “subject to federal approval” part and get the gist right away— unlike some people. You must be confusing me for someone with Biden Derangement Syndrome.
If it were proven that Biden was in regular contact with Jack Smith and personally instructed him to file charges against Trump would you have any issue with that, or would you be lecturing all the right wingers on how the DOJ servers at the pleasure of the president?
OMG… this coming from Mr. “These two things are not the same.” You conflate prosecutorial independence with a regulatory approval matter. It is simply laughable.
If I am wrongly interpreting how conservatives have been appealing to states rights and small government all these years, the way to address that is to explain how conservatives view the matter and explain how these two things are different. You haven't even attempted to do that, all you've done is strawman my arguments and now claim I'm misrepresenting the right.
I haven’t even attempted to do that? *knock, knock* Hello, McFly?? Simple negation and ipse dixit fallacy at its best (or worst). And I am not intentionally strawmanning your argument. I’m trying to make sense out of your gripe here. It’s like pulling teeth getting you to state your argument in a clear and consistent manner. That’s why I recommend you use a syllogistic format. We share precious few points of reference other than the post of yours I initially quoted— “subject to federal approval.”
Created:
-->
@Sunshineboy217
Reagan never officially condemned Soviet military actions when he was going through peace talks with them. He lessened his “evil empire” rhetoric during said peace talks.
Yeah, I guess that is true, but I think he eased off when Gorbachev was the premier. Some even argue that Gorbachev was more responsible for the Soviet Union’s downfall than Reagan.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thanks for the article. For me, this is a tussle between piss poor optics and the possibility of savvy, expedient statesmanship. This is where the concept of political capital comes in. I think Trump just used a lot of it. Time will tell…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No.First of all, we have agencies that handle that. You know, as in people who do this for a living and therefore understand what's actually involved in these decisions. There is no reason whatsoever that the President of the United States would be personally involved in any of this, and there is no evidence Biden had anything to do with it.So no, "Biden" didn't approve anything.My position is; the fact that the federal agency that handles this approved it gives us good reason to believe the program met the criteria that would have otherwise caused it to be denied.
This is merely hair splitting (no offense, Lex) based upon your apparent ignorance of the fact that the head of the DOT is a cabinet level position who serves “at the pleasure of” the POTUS. If the DOT approved the congestion tolling program under Biden, it is structurally the same as Biden himself approving the program, whether the president in question chooses to tweet about it or not.
What I'm arguing is that my ideological opponents do not fall in line with their own stated position. That's what hypocrisy means, and I've repeated that point over and over and over again in this conversation.You did get the last part right though. A hypocrite is someone who does have a flaw in their character, that's why the word carriers weight.
*sigh* More hair splitting. Allow me to clarify which hair is which: when I say “your position” on this matter, I mean the position which you impute to small government conservatives— which is YOUR opinion regarding how conservatives should view the matter, rather than how conservatives might actually view the matter.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Russia doesn't want any more territory than the one it has held onto for the past 3 years. If they were going to take more land, they had 3 years to do it instead of bleeding Ukraine with constant artillery shellings. Some hardliners wanted more territory like Prigozhin, and they killed him for it.
I think Putin is playing a longer game than that. I know nothing about Prigozhin, so I welcome any references you have on that situation.
This has always been about the spoils of war, and Europe is far more pissed it will not be at the spoils table than it is credibly worried about Putin. EU has made zero moves to ramp up their militaries, signalling there was never a need to do so.
I’m not sure what spoils the EU was expecting out of this. Military budgets are the most expedient things to skimp on when peace is taken for granted, and a nation such as the USA has historically had your back. NATO wouldn’t mean much without the USA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There appears to be another binary frame that Lex is simultaneously trying to construct: that a Republican is either irresponsible or a hypocrite. Irresponsible if he holds to his allegedly damaging values or a hypocrite if he doesn’t hold to his values. Heads; Lex wins! Tails; Republicans lose!
Created:
-->
@Sunshineboy217
This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am for peace through strength, not appeasement. Reagan was able to negotiate with the Soviets while still calling it “the evil empire.” If this emboldens Russia to acquire more territory or China to blockade Taiwan, it will be a foreign policy failure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is false. The federal government (as in the entity) needed (past tense) to be involved in the approval process. It was, and it past the test that was required. That's done, we're beyond that.
Ok. So, because Biden had already approved the toll program, Trump should not be getting involved. Is that your position?
You believe in small government and states rights correct? If not, this thread doesn't apply to you.
That’s a more nuanced matter for me. I am neither strongly for big or small federal government. If I wish to play “devil’s advocate” my own position isn’t even relevant. What is relevant is the strength of your argument, or lack thereof. You are actually going so far as to argue that if your ideological opponents do not fall into line with your position, they must have a flaw in their character. That is called bullying (and binary thinking).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump was not creating a "constitutional crisis" using Federal authority to approve tolls impacting a federal highway system"
At least this would be a coherent line of thought as opposed to the mere assertion of “you either agree with me that Trump’s intervention is wrong or you’re a hypocrite!”
As I like to say, there are only two types of thinking: binary and non-binary.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Very well put question. I assume this is a genuine question, so I am gunna answer genuinely. But I will ask you similar questions, how do you believe Israel wages war? Is this consistent with Christian/Western/American... values? Is this morally justifiable according to you?
Thanks for your comprehensive answer! I asked out of genuine curiosity and not to critique or cross examine your answer. I suspect that if I answer in kind, you will seek to criticize, take exception, and maybe even have a good laugh at my expense; I’m just not in the mood to go to great effort for it to result in bickering back and forth. What I will say is that the Bible does not really give much instruction at all about how war should be waged. The Old Testament has a little bit, but is mainly a history of war rather than a how-to manual. The New Testament has none to my knowledge. IMO, the Bible is a book at war with itself— by that I mean contradictory and open to interpretation. For example, Jesus famously said, “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.” But… obviously some disciples WERE carrying swords!
The West seems to get its rules of warfare from historic warriors such as Hammurabi and from the history of warfare itself. Do western forces follow the rules? Yes and no depending. If I were to sum up the conduct of American forces at least, we do the best we can based upon the circumstances. I cannot speak for the Jewish/Israeli rules of conduct, but I imagine they overlap a fair amount with the US and Western Europe. I don’t agree with everything Israel does, but neither do many Israelis! And I live in a nation surrounded by allies, not potential adversaries as Israel does. As I said earlier, Israel has to strike a contradictory balance between valuing all human life and “Never again.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
My point is this:
The Trump Administration is actually required to be involved in the NYC toll program approval process.
If you already know the above to be the case, then I really don’t know what point you are trying to make. Perhaps you could structure it as a syllogism for the most clarity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Wow— that’s a lot of words you’re saying to still not be addressing this:
Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means.
Sometimes you have real complaints about Trump. This, however, isn’t one of those times. There is much lower hanging, much bigger fruit than this.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
- I saw your question, I shall answer it shortly.
Excellent; thanks.
You know Hamas are Sufis right?
Uh no, I did not realize that. I had assumed, it seems incorrectly, that Sufis are not very political, and Hamas is nothing if not political. My rudimentary search immediately found that article indicating that Hamas has persecuted Sufis. So, would you say that this article is on the right track?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, logic much.
It doesn’t seem like it.
Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means. You just see it as “wrong” because the federal government’s requisite involvement isn’t going the way you wish.
The scale of a wrong can only be determined after you figure out what the wrong is.
You have yet to make your case that it is “wrong” (odd word/concept to bring into a strictly regulatory matter, but whatever).
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It’s odd that he boasts so eagerly on Hamas’ behalf, especially considering this fact:
“When Hamas assumed power in 2006, it shut down many Sufi zawiyas (meeting places) on the pretext that they posed a danger to society.”
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Do you believe that Hamas fights Israel in a fashion consistent with Allah’s directives? I ask in order to learn both how you believe Hamas wages war and how you believe Allah directs wars to be fought.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I try to learn something new wherever possible. For example, I learned that one of Hamas’ realized objectives was to interfere with or foil the Abraham Accords.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Indeed. As was the ceasefire in effect prior to October 7, 2023.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
@WyIted
Here’s a good video from Al Jazeera detailing how Hamas has met many of its objectives:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So... Might makes right?
Dramatic much? More like “subject to federal approval” means exactly what it says. That fact means there is no violation of state sovereignty here, unless the courts find that the DOT is disapproving the measure for improper reasons, as I have already acknowledged.
The point is not that this is a big deal nationally, it's just as obvious to a violation of stated right wing principals as it gets. If you was a right winger see nothing wrong with this, that's fine. I am just not interested in hearing you argue states rights ever.
So, not a big deal, but big enough to trigger melodrama and binary thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It is “subject to federal approval.” Therefor, the federal government can also disapprove without it constituting overreach. To be fair, I will say that there is probably a bigger legal burden to uphold with disapproval than simple approval. That will be for the courts to decide. If it is hypocrisy as you claim, I don’t think this is a (mole)hill that limited government conservatives wish to die on. Trump is pursuing smaller government in just about every other respect for this to register.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Israel is an interesting combination of two, often opposing directives: that human life has value and “Never again.”
Created:
-->
@WyIted
"See that pile of rubble? See that modern developed country? The pile of rubble won"
Since the 1940s, two state solutions have been offered. Every time, the Palestinian Arabs have refused them; the Arab League even boycotted meetings over the first offer of a two state solution. When Israel finally says, “That’s it. No more offers of a two state solution!” Hamas responds, “Well then, we will bake your babies and take hostages until you offer a two state solution!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
the toll program is subject to federal approval because there have been a number of projects on various roads in lower Manhatten that have received federal subsidies.
As you know and acknowledge the above to be true, I’m not sure how you can argue this is a case of federal overreach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am not really a Nazi… Also, I dont support Trump.
I see. So in other words, not much has changed with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
One day, you announce you have become a Nazi, the next day you support Trump… in other words, not much has changed with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Currently we share in the wealth of that production. We are an essential part of it.What about when we're not?
We all can only speculate. What I will say is that when technology replaces a certain skillset, the need for other skillsets is also created. Such as when automobiles took over horses and carriages, the need for car and engine designers and manufacturers and mechanics arose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Who owns and operates the means of production then? Private individuals? Forever?
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. In contrast to what? Private individuals own the means of production currently.
There is no reason to be against a minimum wage.
Never said I was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
If a minimum wage is not forcing employers to take a pay cut, there is no point. Increasing prices needs to be discouraged/punished. You get this right? The point of a minimum wage is to pull wealth back into the lower classes.
This is why the working class cannot minimum wage itself into prosperity. Price controls lead to inadequate supply. Minimum wage jobs are not the stuff careers are made of and are meant to be entry level and for youths. The middle class depends upon industrialization, education, unionization, and most importantly, societal sources of wealth creation, which would be access to resources and intellectual property.
This recourse also ends in economic collapse. If nobody is paying anyone, nobody is buying anything.
Henry Ford achieved legendary success by creating a product his own workers could afford. More recently, Walmart has used a similar model.
I believe Marx’s goal was to have machines doing the grunt work, having society share in the fruits of machine labor, and freeing people to pursue more fulfilling goals such as the arts.
As machines do more and more work previously done by paid human labor, the subject of “universal basic income” rears its head. There was a candidate for president in 2020 who made this the center of his platform.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I posted some of my thoughts in post 66. When I have seen business owners asked about minimum wage increases, they usually have responded with a variation of these three things:
- “Depending on the size of the increase, I might have to raise prices a bit.”
-“I might need to increase my use of automation and reduce my staffing.”
-“I already pay higher than the minimum, so I expect the effects to be negligible.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
We should have sufficiently advanced technology in 2032 to deflect it if it appears to be coming too close for comfort.
Created:
Posted in:
Here’s an interesting timeline on the poverty rate:
“Poverty rate trends
1950s: The poverty rate was around 22%
1964: The poverty rate was 19%
1973: The poverty rate was 11.1%, a low point
1983, 1993, 2011: The poverty rate rose to nearly 15% three times
2019: The poverty rate was 10.5%, an all-time low
2020: The poverty rate rose to 11.5% due to the pandemic
2021: The poverty rate declined to 7.8% due to federal programs like unemployment insurance and stimulus payments
2022: The poverty rate rose to 12.4% as many of those programs expired
2023: The poverty rate rose to 12.9%
Factors affecting poverty
The poverty rate has been affected by economic growth, recessions, and government programs. The cost of living and inflation have also contributed to poverty.”
One of the things I find interesting is that the poverty rate was actually quite high in the 1950’s, and that is when the US had the corner of the market on manufacturing after the rest of the industrialized world had been ravaged by WWII.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
cost of living prices are ridiculously high in every state with high wage prices. The dollar buys less stuff.
It can get pretty complicated. It depends upon what the competitive wages are when the minimum wage is increased. If they are low, then the effects are more noticeable. Most states pay higher than the federal minimum, so the federal minimum wage is largely a moot point. The states that pay the federal minimum have lower costs of living, yes, so the minimum wage vs cost of living varies widely across the country. So many kids are learning to monetize online content that they are finding more creative ways to earn than we had.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Ah, no. My post #127 was not asking you, Shila, for a response. For example, this is me NOT asking you for a response. I predict you will respond anyway. Prove my prediction wrong if you can.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Ah well, there is a distinction between “want to be true” and “predict to be true.”
My prediction came true here as well— not that it is a difficult prediction— that’s the entire point:
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
“*Awaits the inevitable, unsolicited, low value response from compulsive spammer*”
Note the fulfillment of my prediction in post 128 (the very next post, in fact)
Yes, it's all about you LOL
Hmm… I don’t get how your attempted slight fits this scenario…
Created:
-->
@Shila
I wager that Harikrish might have said the same thing…
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
The religion forum would certainly not be the same without her… and that would not be a bad thing!
*Awaits the inevitable, unsolicited, low value response from compulsive spammer*
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Publix is one
Publix is excellent— happy and efficient employees with stock in a private company. Costco is similarly well run but a public company.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Every worker can have a vote on the board. So simple, just buy the stock and risk some investment.
Yes, but it is one vote per share rather than per shareholder. The workers would need to decide how to vote as a group (like a union) to make an impact.
Created:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The problem here is that 1.61% of our GDP is being used just to make sure Musk (not billionaires in general, Musk is sucking up this much wealth on his own) is being "properly rewarded" with needless luxury after needless luxury.
This thinking exemplifies the caricaturish view of Musk’s wealth that I just described. You see Musk as a wealth taker rather than a wealth creator. You don’t seem to understand what Musk’s net worth means, either. Do you know how his net worth can change by billions of dollars in a very short period of time? Note that I did not say “increase by billions.” It surely seems like you have no idea.
Whether you agree with my proposal or not,
I do not. I doubt any economist in the free world would, assuming he could understand exactly what you’re proposing.
there is surely a problem here.
The concentration of wealth? Sure, but you are barking up the wrong tree here. I can give you better “trees” if you like.
Created:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Firstly, I am not proposing any government intervention in the enterprises of a business. That difference aside, I think it's important to note that I wouldn't trust the US government with this system, let alone the Chinese government. That isn't saying very much, though, because I don't trust the US government to do the things that the US government already does.
Hmm. Now it sounds as though you are advocating for a benevolent dictatorship. That is arguably the best form of government— as long as the benevolent dictator stays in power.
Created:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I realize that a semantic distinction is causing us some problems here. If the government holding the value of a company's stocks while not actually directly controlling said company is government ownership of that company, then there isn't a difference. What I just described, however, is not the same thing as central planning, and I think that that's an important point.
It sounds as though your idea has the most in common, real world speaking, with China. No expert on China here, but it has companies which are run by non governmental employees, but the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) always has the right and authority to intervene in various enterprises as it sees fit.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If Musk’s net worth were to get cut in half or double, I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over it either way. It is funny how so many people assume that Musk is merely a hoarder of wealth in a zero-sum game, as if he keeps shelves full of custom-made, million dollar bills in his own personal vault— maybe even with his own face on them?
Instead, the reverse is true— Musk and his ilk are wealth/value creators. They bring value via creativity and innovation. For sure, there are CEO’s out there who are not worth their millions in salary (not that Musk receives a cash salary) and are pretty much guilty of corporate mismanagement or even malfeasance. But then there are CEOs who are worth every penny they get, and this is a concept that is foreign to many. There are CEOs whose success has become the success of countless investors, but they haven’t managed to create utopia, so they must stink.
Created:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
“Hmm… and if people like Musk don’t wish to be government employees?”
Then instead of doing something that they are incredibly good at and therefore likely earning a very good salary they can get a job that they are bad at and earn a much smaller salary.
“Where does the investment capital come from?”
Taxpayers.
^^^ How is your prescription distinct from government ownership of what are now private entities?
Created:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
"Only government employed professional investors would make investments.""We would still have people like Musk making investments."These statements aren't contradictory if people like Musk were government employees.
Hmm… and if people like Musk don’t wish to be government employees?
Where does the investment capital come from?
And again:
Would you be able to outline exactly what it is you are prescribing? I need more than “Musk can keep doing what he’s doing. He will just be accumulating wealth at a more humane and reasonable rate.” (Not an exact quote)
Created: