Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 336

I'm rading that the debt cancellation is based upon the "heroes act" wich gives emergency powers due to COVID, so this is obviously bullshit and will be challenged and succesfully stopped by the republican-stacked supreme court, so this is just a stunt by the democrats in the upcoming midterms.

I have no idea about the American student loan system. Here it's basically interest free and guaranteed by the state. Probably only for people that are actual citizens.

I seem to have tendency to abuse the system, so if I was an American I would love my debts to be cancelled regardless of the long term consequences.

On August 26 2022 07:31 CurbStomp2 wrote: I seem to have tendency to abuse the system, so if I was an American I would love my debts to be cancelled regardless of the long term consequences.

Almost everyone does, thats why if this happsn nobody would ever pay their student loan in the hopes that it will be forgiven and it certainly would.

On September 08 2022 18:04 lostaccount wrote: Was she good or bad hmmm

I hate to side with lefties but good riddance, Europeans snide Americans for being barbaric yet half their continent lives under a monarchy in 2022, "oh but they don't have power", even worse, they don't have any responsability besides being parasitic celebrities.

+1

She had very little influence over anything, and basically never said anything that was particularly interesting. This is what made her popular. She basically wasted her life away by doing nothing even though she was given one of the worlds biggest welfare checks, similar to most of her family. Not that I can talk, posting on LP. The cultural influence of the royal family in the commonwealth was extremely strong up until the 1960's. As an example people were expected to stand up for the queen when going to the cinema.

Having a parasite of her calibre is not nearly as bad as living under monarchy imo, (if we pretend for a moment that we are limited to those two choices).

It's reasonably likely that New Zealand/Australia will shift to a republic in the coming decades, because that is something that won't make much of a difference.

She seemed to be remarkably unremarkable

there are countless richer people i don't think it becomes welfare just because this specific rich family also happens to pass on a hereditary political position which has essentially no power what do you wish she had done exactly?

The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for.

On September 14 2022 18:34 Santafairy wrote: there are countless richer people i don't think it becomes welfare just because this specific rich family also happens to pass on a hereditary political position which has essentially no power what do you wish she had done exactly?

I'm not gona tell ppl what to do with their lives. But if someone is playing video games all day they are probably wasting it and not gona be very happy towards the end of their life.

It's true that a queen is a peasant compared to someone like Bezos or Musk. Also, i guess it'se a waste if someone doesn't occupy a castle/palace, and there's probably no value in tearing it down or dividing it up. It's amusing to hear all these English commentators praising the shit out of her for essentially being a very normal person.

On September 14 2022 21:06 blackjacki2 wrote: The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for.

Probably over 90% of the real wealth society has is inherited from innovations that previous generations did, before we were born. The way wealth is distributed in our society is completely irrational. Take stocks for example. Barry Greenstein would be a billionaire today, (richer than the queen) if he didn't sell his stock in amazon. He probably knew very little about amazon and how it was run back then and probably didn't put a professional level of thought into his investments, like most people. It would be pretty dumb to randomly reward someone so much (if he didn't sell it).

On September 14 2022 21:06 blackjacki2 wrote: The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for.

Elon Musk's dad is a millionaire. Elon Musk's dad funded Elon and his brother's first start-up Zip2. They did grow that company and Elon got $22 million out of it and Elon then wisely funded PayPal , etc. etc. etc. but the first two sentences are also true.

On September 14 2022 23:38 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2022 21:06 blackjacki2 wrote: The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for. Probably over 90% of the real wealth society has is inherited from innovations that previous generations did, before we were born. The way wealth is distributed in our society is completely irrational. Take stocks for example. Barry Greenstein would be a billionaire today, (richer than the queen) if he didn't sell his stock in amazon. He probably knew very little about amazon and how it was run back then and probably didn't put a professional level of thought into his investments, like most people. It would be pretty dumb to randomly reward someone so much (if he didn't sell it).

You mean the potentially massive reward of investing is stupid? Why?

On September 15 2022 00:11 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2022 21:06 blackjacki2 wrote: The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for. Elon Musk's dad is a millionaire. Elon Musk's dad funded Elon and his brother's first start-up Zip2. They did grow that company and Elon got $22 million out of it and Elon then wisely funded PayPal , etc. etc. etc. but the first two sentences are also true.

What’s your point? You’d have no idea who Elon Musk is if he not for PayPal and Tesla. He’s not famous for being his dad’s son

On September 14 2022 23:38 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2022 21:06 blackjacki2 wrote: The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for. Probably over 90% of the real wealth society has is inherited from innovations that previous generations did, before we were born. The way wealth is distributed in our society is completely irrational. Take stocks for example. Barry Greenstein would be a billionaire today, (richer than the queen) if he didn't sell his stock in amazon. He probably knew very little about amazon and how it was run back then and probably didn't put a professional level of thought into his investments, like most people. It would be pretty dumb to randomly reward someone so much (if he didn't sell it).

Someone risks their money by investing it into a company and the company uses that money to grow and increase in value and then the person that risked their money shares in the wealth. Not sure what you find irrational about this. Then again you probably believe that the rational way to distribute wealth is to just collect it by force from the people that have it and distribute it to the people that don't.

On September 15 2022 09:05 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2022 23:38 Stroggoz wrote:   On September 14 2022 21:06 blackjacki2 wrote: The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for. Probably over 90% of the real wealth society has is inherited from innovations that previous generations did, before we were born. The way wealth is distributed in our society is completely irrational. Take stocks for example. Barry Greenstein would be a billionaire today, (richer than the queen) if he didn't sell his stock in amazon. He probably knew very little about amazon and how it was run back then and probably didn't put a professional level of thought into his investments, like most people. It would be pretty dumb to randomly reward someone so much (if he didn't sell it). Someone risks their money by investing it into a company and the company uses that money to grow and increase in value and then the person that risked their money shares in the wealth. Not sure what you find irrational about this. Then again you probably believe that the rational way to distribute wealth is to just collect it by force from the people that have it and distribute it to the people that don't.

lmfao your response is so utterly stupid it's not worth responding to. You completely miss the point as do the posters above you. And you follow it up with some ridiculous statement. Then again it's not surprising given how easily you are manipulated into thinking robbing supermarkets for a few hundred dollars is the worlds most pressing issue. Your exactly the kind've person who would think street crime in Moscow is more important than famines in Ukraine if the commissars told you. Hahaha.

So, tech in EVs, solar, rockets, etc. is obviously massively important. Elon got a Physics degree from an Ivy League school and his first start-up funded by his dad among other things surely. What are the chances of someone poor from the Global South hitting $100 billion?

i think you're the utterly stupid one, the only way to create a capitalist economy where some people can't get rewarded "randomly" would be to have foresight of the future of all companies or in other words a time machine

the fact that barry greenstein almost got very lucky, and then didn't, is not an indictment of an entire system as "completely irrational"

how can you be on a poker site and post something so fucking retarded

if a guy calls a raise with QT and beats you is poker completely irrational? just because he got lucky?

a rational investor could look at the multiple bull markets in tech and go "i bet e-commerce will be a thing of the future, look at this pets.com and other companies got pretty big, bookstores seem to have a lot of overhead" and invest in a bunch of amazon looking companies, including amazon, and then have a great success with the stock

On September 16 2022 21:23 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On September 15 2022 09:05 blackjacki2 wrote:   On September 14 2022 23:38 Stroggoz wrote:   On September 14 2022 21:06 blackjacki2 wrote: The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for. Probably over 90% of the real wealth society has is inherited from innovations that previous generations did, before we were born. The way wealth is distributed in our society is completely irrational. Take stocks for example. Barry Greenstein would be a billionaire today, (richer than the queen) if he didn't sell his stock in amazon. He probably knew very little about amazon and how it was run back then and probably didn't put a professional level of thought into his investments, like most people. It would be pretty dumb to randomly reward someone so much (if he didn't sell it). Someone risks their money by investing it into a company and the company uses that money to grow and increase in value and then the person that risked their money shares in the wealth. Not sure what you find irrational about this. Then again you probably believe that the rational way to distribute wealth is to just collect it by force from the people that have it and distribute it to the people that don't. lmfao your response is so utterly stupid it's not worth responding to. You completely miss the point as do the posters above you. And you follow it up with some ridiculous statement. Then again it's not surprising given how easily you are manipulated into thinking robbing supermarkets for a few hundred dollars is the worlds most pressing issue. Your exactly the kind've person who would think street crime in Moscow is more important than famines in Ukraine if the commissars told you. Hahaha.

"World's most pressing issue"

No, not quite. I think it's a pressing issue for seniors that can't get their prescriptions filled when Walgreen's and CVS close down their locations because people like you think shoplifting from large corporations are victimless crimes that should be ignored.