marcusverus

Everyone has their own priorities, I guess. I'm not willing to drive down Americans' wages to save a buck on strawberries.

We both know you haven't lifted a finger to help these people. You're not interested in actually saving lives, just that sweet righteous indignation (after all, it's free!)

There's no such thing as "jobs natives don't want", only "wages natives don't want".

Maybe, or maybe they just employ less people and less things get built.

The foreign born population residing in the US fell from ~15% to ~5% from 1920-1970. It was one of the most prosperous and productive periods in human history.

Motte: We all share the land!

Bailey: The state owns all land!

Do yourself a favor and DCA in from here. SpaceX was "only" valued at 210 Billion back in June 2024, around 11% of its current valuation. A return to that valuation would take it down to ~$16/share!

SpaceX is a phenomenal company. I've wanted to buy in since 2009. But the stock is the exact inverse of my ideal single-stock investment thesis--huge downside with severely limited short-to-mid-term upside, given the huge premium already being paid.

Maybe take a look at Rocket Lab :)

If these figure represent actual deaths (big if), those people will have died because literally nobody on earth was willing to pay to keep them alive--yourself included.

L̶a̶u̶n̶c̶h̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶v̶a̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶d̶e̶d̶

̶F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶o̶s̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶.̶ ̶

̶F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶’̶t̶ ̶e̶c̶o̶n̶o̶m̶i̶c̶a̶l̶.̶ ̶

̶M̶e̶g̶a̶c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶a̶l̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶L̶E̶O̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶i̶p̶e̶ ̶d̶r̶e̶a̶m̶.̶ ̶

̶S̶t̶a̶r̶s̶h̶i̶p̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶f̶l̶y̶.̶ ̶

Starfall will never happen!

If you remove the word abject, the argument is:

half of the US is living in poverty

This statement is also false.

I encourage you to try to live on anywhere from $7 to $15 an hour

That's the bottom quintile, not the bottom half. The Median household income is $83,730, which would be more like $41.50.

It's actually far better than that! When people hear "poverty rate", they think "the percentage of people living in poverty". That's not what the census data on poverty is reporting, though. The census data is based on income only. It excludes in-kind welfare (Food Stamps, HUD, and Medicaid) and even excludes some welfare that is paid out in cash (like refundable tax credits). In other words, the census data is reporting that 10% of Americans earn under the poverty line. The number living under the poverty line is far, far lower.

The United States doles out >$30K/year in welfare spending for each person (not household, each person) under the poverty line. And that's just HUD/SNAP/Medicaid. The idea that any significant portion of the US is living in "abject poverty" (let alone half!) is hysterical in every sense of the word.

"Don't leave us or we'll kill you" isn't the pro-EU argument you seem to think it is.

Ah yes, economists are famously capable of accurately projecting a decade in the future.

Nobody has to condition me to see a useful robot as being worth 20K+. Being able to offload domestic labor would be a huge win. So would the more subtle benefits of living in a home that is always in pristine condition.

Once they're able to cook, they'll be in every middle-class household on earth.

DCA

The Democrat election messaging that caused border encounters to ~3X immediately after Biden was elected, obviously.

https://archive.is/QKk0l#selection-923.73-930.0

https://dgcjnpzq7j07id.archive.is/QKk0l/41e225be79dbd90e86c6...

Democrats actively encouraged more than 10 million illegals to pour into the country during the previous administration. They lied about it and downplayed it for three years, and then (when election season rolled around) they talked tough about their plan to "seal the border"... which was another lie, as the bill they proposed would have allowed illegal immigration to continue at up to ~6X the historical average rate without requiring any action whatsoever to "seal the border". When the American people vote for mass deportations, those were called "fascism" and the basic enforcement of immigration law is actively, even physically opposed.

But an inconvenient process change has you clutching your pearls and crying "bad faith"? Yikes.

10% of the population being able to put major policies to a referendum is a bit silly.

I think it's fantastic, actually. If the US had such a mechanism in place, we'd get term limits passed in a jiffy! In the absence of such a mechanism, the political class can simply refuse to act on popular measures. And while 10% might seem like a small number, the time, effort, and organization required to get 1/10th of the entire population to sign on for such a measure is actually a huge undertaking.

I’ll cut against the grain here and say it’s ABSOLUTELY appropriate for taxpayers to pay the bill here.

It's one thing to agree that he should be compensated (I agree), but the figure doesn't make much sense. Per the article:

During his stay in jail, Larry lost his post-retirement job and missed his anniversary — as well as the birth of his grandchild.

That's all pretty rough, but I fail to see how it entitles him to the lavish sum of $800,000. That's roughly half a lifetime's earnings for the typical worker!

we need incentives for voters to take this stuff seriously.

I have a sneaking suspicion that setting public money on fire is not the best mechanism to achieve this outcome.

Both can be true. Democrats tend to dominate the lowest income quintile, while Republicans tend to win the second and third quintiles. So if you're only looking at the bottom quintile, Democrats would win that cohort. If you combine the bottom three quintiles, Republicans would win it.

Who said anything about revoking drivers licenses?

You have successfully rebutted my use of the word "mass". What about the substance of the argument?

This rude reddit stuff, this snarky ignorance-as-an-argument junk, is just so demeaning.

The role of the entrepreneur is to organize labor and capital in pursuit of their goals. The achievement of said goals can obviously be attributed to the entrepreneur.

Try anchoring your arguments in facts--in reality. Make assertions. Form syllogisms. Word games are for children.

The first catch of Super Heavy by the chopsticks was 18 months ago. Tesla started mass production of a dedicated, steering-wheel-free robotaxi five days ago. The first flight of the new Raptor 3 engine should happen any day now.

Elon is doing amazing things on a regular basis. What would drive someone to pretend otherwise?

The definition of usury hasn't changed in 200 years.

From Webster's 1828 Edition:

U'SURY, noun s as z. [Latin usura, from utor, to use.]

1. Formerly, interest; or a premium paid or stipulated to be paid for the use of money.

[Usury formerly denoted any legal interest, but in this sense, the word is no longer in use.]

2. In present usage, illegal interest; a premium or compensation paid or stipulated to be paid for the use of money borrowed or retained, beyond the rate of interest established by law.

3. The practice of taking interest. (obsolete)

There is something insidious about the state forcing a citizen to pay for its services, only turn around and insist that the use of said services entitles the state to further control of the citizen.

Only if it could be done in an apolitical way, which seems impossible in the current political climate. The legitimacy of the US Federal Government depends on the perceived continuity of the (now mythical) constitutional order. If one party or the other packs the court without bipartisan support for their nominees in the Senate, it would be denounced by the other as an authoritarian end-run around the constitution--as a revolutionary rather than a mere procedural act. IMO this would be more likely to foment disunion than it would be to restore the bygone constitutional order.

The power of the judiciary to "interpret" the constitution was a huge chink in the armor of the Constitutional order. A handful of unelected judges can effectively amend the constitution via simple majority, but can only be "overruled" by the people if there is extremely broad opposition (as a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of both houses)--which is, of course, a total inversion of the democratic-republican principles which brought our country into being. The practical effect is that, while the people have some limited democratic control over the government, control of the state has been wrested away from them by the Judiciary. This was fine so long as the Judiciary saw themselves as honest arbiters of the constitutional order, but the moment the Judiciary began to see themselves as architects rather than mere arbiters, the constitutional order was at an end.

On being interrupted, "It's difficult to describe. Something like a physical sensation."

This is extremely relatable. I'm pretty confident that this physical sensation is related to my (rather severely) limited working memory, which I have to carefully manage at maximum capacity and which is catastrophically overwhelmed by some interruptions. A token interruption ("hey, do you have a sec"?) Doesn't tend to cause the sensation, but an interruption that contains data ("I called Greg about the plan for Wednesday and he said that Susan said...") is psychologically painful and even enraging in an oddly visceral sort of way.

(100%, 100%)

the current administration is hell bent on undermining and underestimating everyone and everything

Welp, that's enough reddit for today.