0x27081990

Gun control didn't help that much after all

The poorer are getting richer, too. But the rich gets richer faster. I don't see a problem with it, but it's funny to see how besides having more regulations, higher taxes and more government intervention (most of the time in the name of making society more equal) increases inequality at a faster rate just to see the very same people saying "we need higher taxes and more government intervention!"

Tax cuts always have a higher impact on the wealthy because, well, they pay more taxes.

This isn’t a bad thing. That money won’t dissapear. It’ll get spent or invested (either directly or indirectly by a bank if saved).

Tax cuts are good. Stop saying they’re bad. The wealthy always find loopholes because they can afford lawyers and accountats to deduct taxes or skip taxes through offshore companies, so it’s the not-so-wealthy who have a yet bigger impact but not so directly visible.

They closed import/export for the private sector. Only federal government handles it. Which led to export just oil (inefficiently if I may add), so when priced collapsed they had to decide if pay debt and face hunger, or fight hunger and face a financial default. Guess which one they decided?

If their economy wasn’t centrally planned and controlled by the government, it would be more resilient

There’s a lot of hate and resentment in that article. Sure, maybe Bodega isn’t the brightest startup. But who cares? If it’s a bad idea, nature/market will make it go away.

If bodegas/corner stores whatever are worth it, people will continue to buy from there and Bodega nor any other “shiny” startup will stand a chance against them.

My guess is she doesn’t believe in freemarket and thinks that someone can simply kill corner stores by throwing money at a startup.

I'm not sure it is a race issue. Times were different. People are now accepting that drug consumption doesn't make you a criminal.

At some point Britain thought that wealthy highly-educated people were incapable of being criminals, until time proved them wrong. Science is always evolving.

The only country in South America that kept loyal to the Chicago School was Chile and its results really show.

The rest is very Keynesian and it shows. I'm from South America, trust me. Saying that you're a libertarian here is taken as if saying you're a fascist. Guess who they blame for our own failures? Capitalism and imperialism, of course.

>You can't control for every variable in a market. It just isn't possible. Even economic "laws" like supply and demand have counter examples like Giffen goods.

That's the whole point. Markets are decentralized brains, while Socialism advocates that a government as a central planner will be more efficient (it could be more efficient in specific cases like total war or natural disasters) and lead to Communism where we won't even need a government because society will behave as one being.

The lesson of the pencil comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

Quite the opposite. Everyone praises Karl Marx and Keynes, although they been proven wrong many times. Most Millenials think that Capitalism and freemarkets are evil, while Socialism is good. History has proven otherwise

So Milton Friedman is unrespectable?

Google and Facebook will find a way. Problem are small/young startups

I used to think the same as you when I still was a student. “How can these people critize the wonders of college? I’m learning so much!”. Then I realized I learnt nothing.

Disclaimer: it wasn’t a fancy college, but still.

I just think education needs some sort of revolution

I thought they were firm supporters of Net Neutrality. Or is this somehow different case?

Aren't you using your own version? The original meaning of left and right is the French Revolution, where people who sat on the left wanted revolution and people who sat on the right wanted to keep the status quo. People who sat in the center wanted a little bit of both. Then the definition transitioned to left being collectivism and right being capitalism.

But for some reason a good portion of academia (to not say most) labeled right as authoritarian and violent, and left as humanitarian and progressive. Hell, even Wikipedia and Google definitions says that national socialism is a far right-wing movement. So I don't blame you, definitions are a bit messy

Well, I can list a few incompatibilities if you want:

* Right-wing is usually in favor of free market and free enterprise, whilst NSAP stole private property (mostly from Jews) and heavily controlled the economy, also got out of the international financial system.

* Right-wing is usually against gun controls, whilst NSAP was very gun control.

* Right-wing is usually pro free speech for everyone no matter what. NSAP was not pro free speech. Government literally ran the media.

* Right-wing is mostly against welfare state, while NSAP was very pro welfare state. In fact Otto von Bismarck (a personal hero for Hitler) was the creator of the welfare state as we know it.

They do, however share some nationalism views and don't like open borders, and think that protectionism is ok. So there's that.

Maybe you're a bit confused about political ideologies. Check https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I don't read Breitbart (nor most media tbh), but I just skimmed through this site and can't find anything related to national socialism. It just looks like another right-wing news site, being that national socialism is a center-wing political stance, I think it is incompatible in principle.

Do you have any link of them claiming to be nazis or taking nazis stances about something? Or do you just call nazi anyone who disagrees with you? Not trying to pick a fight, just honestly asking.

If you can watch Netflix with Firefox, sounds like you're on Windows or macOS.

The best browsers for Netflix are IE or Safari. Chrome and Firefox support up to 720p only.

Higher profits aren't a bad thing. Higher profits mean higher taxes paid, higher profits also mean more money put into work (personal investments or by third parties, i.e. put in a bank and the bank makes their own investments or loans it). Higher profits means wealth is being generated. Contrary to popular belief, minimum wage does not distribute wealth, but rather excludes those who have less, therefore helps accumulating wealth.

Minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be a job for life. It's an entry level job. If you want higher paid jobs, you need to earn it. Minimum wage increase causes unemployment, you end helping a few at the expense of others who happen to need help the most.

>It is a market inefficiency caused by zoning density restrictions and overuse of historic landmark status which creates a politically induced artificial scarcity in housing (scarcity = rising prices).

Then it is a government inefficiency, not a market inefficiency

>Minimum wage isn't really Marxist afaik

That's correct, but current Marxists or people who claim to be left-wing always make it a top priority issue to increment the minimum wage.

It's a pricing system. When prices go up, you only pay it if you really need it. How much are you willing to pay for having someone washing your dishes at home?

Economists have been warning this for more than decades[1]. There are extensive studies about it. There are even former Marxists who talked about it, like Thomas Sowell[2]:

>Sowell has said that he was a Marxist "during the decade of my 20s"; one of his earliest professional publications was a sympathetic examination of Marxist thought vs. Marxist–Leninist practice. His experience working as a federal government intern during the summer of 1960 caused him to reject Marxian economics in favor of free market economic theory. During his work, Sowell discovered an association between the rise of mandated minimum wages for workers in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and the rise of unemployment in that industry. Studying the patterns led Sowell to theorize that the government employees who administered the minimum wage law cared more about their own jobs than the plight of the poor.

Why do almost everybody think they can go against the laws of economy?

[1] 50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c876c468-ffca...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell#Education_and_ca...

Why do you make it personal? I'm just mentioning current US law. The Snowden scandal wasn't because the NSA was spying people, it was because it was spying US citizens without a warrant. The NSA and CIA purpose is to spy the rest of the world in order to "keep Americans safe".

>Hopefully sometime soon Apple will also encrypt iCloud contents so data from non-american people (europe in my case) is protected against the US government prying eyes.

Also not American myself, but I think legally it should be quite the opposite: NSA and CIA can "legally" spy non-US citizens. It is illegal for them to spy US citizens.

A and B decide what C has to pay for D, while some of that tax money happens to fell into A and B pockets.

>free money through rent

What about the money that you spent buying/restoring/maintaining land instead of doing something else?

There's also risks when renting your private property. What if they don't want to leave? You can't kick them out, you need to begin a trial and justice is very slow (it takes at least 2 years and as long as 10 years in Argentina and I've heard it's the same on most countries of the EU). And it's not like you'll get your money back (the losses of not renting that property while it was occupied plus judicial expenditures).

I agree that there are people who own lots of land and properties, but it's their right because they used their money for it, instead of doing something else.

This. I've always been a Linux and OpenBSD user, but I'm buying a MBP 13" next week mostly for portability and battery life, planning to run macOS instead of Linux just because of this.

Content management system