Despite the mathematical rigor that the argument requires (i.e. the Universe needs a specific set of constants, each of which need to "tweaked" to a specific number), the argument rests on the probabilistic absurdity of using a sample size of one.

Why should it trickle down? The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. Whereas the convoluted, socialist world that the Democrats aimed for is a world where few people take risks, where everyone wants a cozy place because life is too scary, etc. — Agustino

Why is the primary "point" of the economy to offer opportunities for entrepreneurs? Instead of, say, to ensure that people have affordable access to basic needs and wants. Why do you assume that economic inequality and financial uncertainty provide greater opportunity to start a business despite greater risks? When you say you want to create a society in which people takes chances that are "worth the risk", what would the alternative be to not taking a risk? This seems like veiled socio-economic Darwinism.

May I ask what your working definition of a "socialist" is? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I've been thinking lately that this may deserve its own thread.

If the GDP, productivity, stock value, unemployment etc. continue to do better alongside stagnant or falling wages, and increased wealth inequality, then lo and behold, we have a pretty compelling argument for socialism.

Monogamy, it seems, is increasingly being thought of as oppressive, destructive, irrational, and probably plenty of other adjectives I could think of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A Gallup poll from 2013 showed that 14% of Americans considered polygamy as "morally acceptable". 2x the increase from 7% in 2001. This does not mean, of course, that monogamy is increasingly viewed as "oppressive, destructive, irrational", and "other adjectives" that you admit you made up. On the contrary, it shows that 86% of Americans do not view polygamy as morally acceptable.

But his progressive agenda resulted in the conservative backlash that led to Trump getting elected. A moderate Democrat has a better chance of having a lasting, positive, and beneficial legacy. — Relativist

And here is an good article showing how, contrary to the national conversation between Republicans and moderate Democrats, the sudden and recent political ascendance of the radical left has not hindered the Democrats, but (and the correlation here is admittedly more debatable) has helped the Democrats in the last month since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the primary.

My guess is that he has to run it though his supervisor before getting approval to post. — Jeremiah

I think it's more likely that he's just a pigeon walking on a keyboard.

But his progressive agenda resulted in the conservative backlash that led to Trump getting elected. A moderate Democrat has a better chance of having a lasting, positive, and beneficial legacy. — Relativist

I think this is crap, to be honest. As long as a politician is of the Democratic Party, conservatives have demonstrated that they will label them a socialist, anti-American, etc., regardless of their actual policies. The GOP have made it clear that they will not work with the Democrats, who should, for the sake of the nation, embrace more radical leftist positions, including a livable wage, public healthcare, affordable/free education, and a more equitable economy. The rising Democratic star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated in an interview that there is "nothing radical about moral clarity", and I think that's a vital stance the Dems need to take, in particular, to contrast themselves with Trumpist Republicans and their enablers.

I don't think Clinton lost because she was a moderate, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think so. — Relativist

Clinton lost for many reasons, one of which was that she was a moderate in a time when being a moderate, run-of-the-mill politician has become a liability when it comes to presidential aspirations. A lot of people are looking for alternatives to our current system. That's in part how Obama was able to beat out Clinton and eventually win the presidency. He was, at the time, somewhat of an outsider and a novel voice within the political landscape.

Also, Brett assumes in this piece that Trump will win every state he won in 2016. However, recent polling in three key states that Trump narrowly won in 2016 (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan) currently, by a wide-margin, do not think he deserves reelection.

I think a Flight 93 editorial is more relevant now than it was in 2016

Brett Stephens is probably the most vacuous of the NYT op-ed crowd, which is quite the distinction given the competition. Warren has long excelled at being able to articulate growing inequality despite an expanding economy, so this idea that she would not be able to "find a compelling answer" is ludicrous, as is the idea that a sound economy alone is enough to compel Trump supporters to the voting booth.

IMO, the Democrats best hope is to nominate a moderate. Left-wingers certainly feel energized, but their favorite candidates (Sanders and Warren) have lower chances of getting elected than does a real moderate. They can only win if something pretty bad happens during the next 2 years. — Relativist

The Dems nominated Clinton, a moderate, who lost. The Dems need to push the overton window towards the left, because the right-ward shift is leading this country down a dark path.

If 'Pocahontas' is the only thing the GOP can sling around then I'm not worried.

yeah but it smells like teen spirit

"Rene Descartes walks into a bar and orders a drink. When he finishes his drink, the bartender asks him if he would like another. Descartes replies, “No, I think not,” and disappears in a puff of logic."

Ugh, really? No one made the Decartes walks into a bar joke? Please don't make me do it.

Fuck there's that pigeon cooing again.

Yeah he's a blatant white nationalist.

This is more or less the same argument made in the infamous Flight 93 Election editorial, from 2016, written by a former speechwriter for Bush and Giuliani, Michael Anton, under the pseudo-name Publius Decius Mus (who was a real Roman consul).

The airplane analogy Anton presents is more appropriate than a tandem bike, because the former includes others, as opposed to a simple two-person tandem bike, in which there is just you and, presumably, a representative leader. It ignores the fact that your decision (and singular perception that things are on a cataclysmic trajectory) will also harm others.

But the Flight 93 Election (and other myopic analogies) is full of fallacies and countless presumptions. It assumes that the reasonable conclusion of the "Flight", if there is no interference, is a catastrophic denouement. But how can it exclude the possibility that a large-scale political shake-up will do more harm than good? It also assumes that the current course we are on commensurately harms everyone, despite differing levels of socio-economic status, ethnic and religious identity, etc. It is presumptuous to assume that a current trajectory or an alternative overhaul will affect people similarly. It also assumes that what is required for a course-correction is a political outsider; that what is required is simply to shake up the system. But what is the best course-correction? What are our politico-societal objectives? Without content in political policy, alternatives can be ineffective, or actually do more damage.

One can argue that the system is indeed fucked, and that an alternative is necessary. On that basis alone, however, one could have argued in favor of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, who have two diametrically opposed political ideologies.

It was obvious during Trump's campaign in 2015/2016 that he was not what America's political system needed. He embellished and outright lied about US immigration and immigrants. He demeaned women. He lied about the state of the economy and trade. He was never an ally of the LGBT community, the working class, or minorities. Now, nearly a year-and-a-half into Trump's presidency, it is indisputable that he and his administration have done more harm than good to America and the global community. The system has certainly been shaken up, but as the dust quickly settles it is evident that it has been for the worse.

And your commentary on Black Culture is a mesh of outright racism and false statistics.

Maw, since you've made 3 lackluster responses thus far I am discluding you from any further discussion. For example, twice now you have quoted a small portion of what I just said while leaving out other parts that addressed your response. It's a waste of time. — ibrust

Lol if you re-read our exchange, you've ignored my responses/evidence to you regarding

1) Trump's Separation Policy
2) Trump's comments on our allies
3) The effects of the Tax Cut
4) That the Unite The Right rally was organized by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer
5) Stats showing far-right terrorists have perpetrated more attacks on American soil than Islamic terrorists.

There is nothing derogatory in saying that Germany gets gas from Russia and is thus economically dependent on Russia and functionally subservient to them, it's actually just true. — ibrust

Except 1) that's not the language that Trump used and 2) it isn't true: Trump's actual words were that Germany gets 70% of its energy from Russia, when in fact natural gas makes up only 20% of Germany's energy use, and about 80% of Germany's natural gas comes from Russia. So no, they are certainly not "economically dependent" or "functionally subservient" to Russia.

It's like I could turn on the news and get everything you're saying verbatim. — ibrust

Well yeah, I'm getting my answers from valid sources, actually reporting, and expert investigation. What do you do sir?

You're racist, you try to manipulate black people into liking you by catering to what you think they want you to say rather than saying the truth. It's proof that you see them in terms of their race. In the process you show that you have no real concern for any of the problems in the black community as you dismiss all the issues that were raised. All this claiming to be sympathetic to blacks is just your effort to keep them under your thumb, you actually do nothing for them and have no interest in helping them. And they know that.. — ibrust

Oh ok.

No he actually signed an executive order halting the family separation policy days after this became a public outcry, see for yourself: — ibrust

Yet thousands of children remain separated from parents, again, through a policy the Trump administration started. The traumatic psychological effects may last a lifetime for both children and parents. It will never be "resolved".

It's like nothing I said to you registered - did I not just explain how sometimes, in relationships, people have to call one another out and address the problems...? — ibrust

Calling the EU America's largest economic "foe" is in no way a diplomatic or constructive way to "address problems". Saying that Germany is a puppet of Russia does nothing to "address the problem". Contrast Obama's criticism and constructive solutions of Germany's use of Russia's natural gas, with Trump's.

So he claimed there were good people at the rally, you said it was a Nazi rally, I said there were people who were not Nazis at the rally..... In other words conservatives that aren't Nazi. Do you understand? It's logic. — ibrust

The 'Unite The Right rally" was specifically organized by Richard Spencer, a white nationalist and neo-Nazi.

That issue has been resolved, it was resolved rather quickly and he worked to resolve it. But you're talking about it as he is trying to separate the families and I just don't understand why. It's also been done like that for decades but you're hellbent on wringing his neck over it. — ibrust

Absolutely none of this is true. There are a fantastic number of publications investigating the zero-tolerance policy, which was started under the Trump administration. I suggest you read up on it. It has not been "done like this for decades", and it hasn't been "resolved".

He hasn't disparaged allies, that's dramatic nonsense. Relationships aren't always smiles and hugs, if you've ever had family you'd know better, sometimes you have to handle problems... that's how healthy relationships are maintained. If you just smile and gloss over things, and pretend everything's fine, problems linger and it actually kills your relationships. Shows how much you really understand life. And the idea that he should abuse dictators and not be diplomatic with them is actually absurd. You may as well say that peace talks are a bad thing, or peace with North Korea is a bad thing. Do you really see the world as a playground of children hurling blame at one another? Good thing you aren't in charge! — ibrust

Wow you really digressed into an absurd strawman didn't you? Trump continually attacks the EU, Germany, Canada, their politicians, etc. He has attacked American institutions and federal department. When you claim that Germany is "totally controlled by Russia", that's disparagement. It's not "dramatic nonsense". When you claim that the media is the "enemy of the American people", that's dangerously disparaging. Unless of course the meaning of disparagement looses any and all meaning, out of convenience to support Trump.

No, the tax cuts hurt the lower and middle class in the short term (via restricted government programs)... and government benefits help the lower and middle class in the short term. But in the long term the tax cuts grow the GDP, create jobs and stave off the US defaulting on its debt, which preserves social security and medicare... thus they help the lower and middle class in the long term - social security and medicare help the lower and middle class; a working economy helps the lower and middle class. And we've said this many times. — ibrust

The individual tax cuts expire in the 2020s, and each year the majority of the middle class will receive less and less from their tax cuts, until it eventually expires. However, the tax cut will continue permanently for corporations, and wealthier individuals will receive a larger cut. And ultimately the added $1.4 trillion deficit that the tax cuts will produce will be (already have been) leveraged as a clarion call for cutting social services in the name of the deficit, primarily affecting the poor and middle class. The 2017 tax cut was based on the Kansas tax cut, which was an abysmal failure, and had to be repealed.

No, those are people with no gratitude for what they have hopping on anti-American bandwagons and setting a horrible example for the black youth in this country. Black youth are 70% without fathers in the home and are driven to the fringes by the corrupt culture ... they need some parental figures to guide them.... For so many black youth in this country their only parental guidance comes from rappers yelling about capping thugs.... They don't need foodball players feeding them more antisocial sentiment. — ibrust

Great racist stuff here :up:

I wonder how you feel about airport security prioritizing Muslims over non-Muslims in searches? In Germany and other European countries the airport security actually actively profiles and they have the best airport security with the lowest rates of smuggling and crime getting through their ports in the world. — ibrust

I'm actually more concerned with far-right extremists, rather than radical Islamist extremists, given that the former have been responsible for far more attacks than the latter.

It wasn't actually just Nazis at the protest. — ibrust

So? Are you comparing Nazis with Antifa, an organization you probably only heard about via the protest, in which a woman was killed because a Nazi drove his car into the crowd?

I've been out with groups of men and women to bars and clubs and people just socialize and drink and no one goes home with anyone. Therefore no one ever fucks. Wow am I doing philosophy?

Dude you used an example size of one, a businessman who succeeded in starting a company while in debt, as a justifiable reason for others to pursue starting a business, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of new businesses end up failing. That is objectively fucking terrible advice to give. You constantly spew these puritanical notions revolving around sex and women without any justification, while constantly ignoring my evidenced counterarguments. In conversation after conversation, for years, you've treated the evidence I provide to you as inferior as your own anecdotal experience. In one instance, you stated "I base my statements about what I observe in my own soul", which is something you do far more often than you would ever admit. I think that statement sums up who you are. This is a philosophy forum, but you rarely ever do philosophy. You just spew nonsense, and I'm frankly tried of it.

It's not a matter of being "upset", but being dazed by a barrage of stupid arguments, comments, and ideas over and over again.

I think the best argument against social conservatism is to simply look at Agustino's comments.

Holy fucking shit

Anyone who supports Trump has a twisted, deprived sense of morality (or simply none at all)

A statistical analysis tells us precious little about why the 10-year survival rate for businesses is around 30%. It also doesn't tell us what makes for a successful business — Agustino

Exactly, so without knowing why only 30% of businesses survive, why would that be the default recommendation to young people whose backgrounds, experience, and network you know nothing about? I am not suggesting that no one should start a business, but that it's an extremely risky venture, not to mention exhausting and time-consuming. If I were starting a family, and wanted to spend time with them, starting a business would not be in my best interest. It's not a comparable recommendation to a waged salary.

I'm astounded that you, a self-proclaimed entrepreneur, have paid so little attention to the obvious risks of starting a business. But then again, you rarely give thought to anything, so I guess I'm not that surprised.

It is risky, but so is the alternative. I remember the story of Bill Bartmann when he was $1 million in personal debt after a bankruptcy. And he was saying that you can't pay back $1 million working a job, that is ridiculous, so the only alternative for him was to start a business. — Agustino

The strongest takeaway from this story is don't start a business while in debt.

I don't buy that. It is sufficient to give a cursory glance to Hollywood and pop culture to see that sexual promiscuity is marketed and advertised like crazy. To say that you are not experiencing moral depravity in America because of sex seems hardly conceivable. All the daily sex scandals with celebrities, etc. — Agustino

This is simply circular, because you're already defining sexual promiscuity as inherently immoral without reasonable justification. Having multiple consenting sex partners isn't "morally depraved" regardless of your inane, toxic, puritanical views

Damn there's that cooing again.

It's come to light that two weeks before his inauguration, Trump was shown highly classified material showing that Putin had personally ordered the cyber attacks to influence the election.

Like (coo coo) clockwork

A recent case-in-point, in 2014, only 22% of Republicans said that Russia is an ally or friendly to the USA. In 2018 that number is now 40%. Compare that with Democrats which dropped several points, from 28% to 25%.

There's nothing deranged about attacking Trump's immigration policies, which forces family separation, or departs people who have lived and contributed to this country for decades. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump's foreign policy, which disparages long-term allies, and flatters dictators. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump's economic policy, which includes a tax cut that overwhelmingly favors the rich over the poor and middle class, or his ridiculous trade war with a variety of countries, which will only hurt small business and cut jobs. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump when he criticizes Black Americans for peacefully kneeling during the American anthem, but pardons Joe Arpaio who engaged in extreme racial profiling of Latin Americans. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump's comments on women when he gloats about sexual assault, and threatens to overturn Roe v. Wade. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump when he claims that there are "very fine people on both sides", during a Neo-Nazi protest.

There is nothing deranged about having the moral clarity to see that these are morally abhorrent and having mettle to call out or fight these injustices. The idea of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome" is nothing more than a sick, vapid attempt to normalize Trump's immorality. This is simply gaslighting.

Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. — Agustino

I think it's absolutely hilarious that you are socially conservative, and fiscally liberal. That's literally a joke on 30 Rock.

The alternative is to start some business of your own, you can, in time, make a lot better money that way, than staying on a wage. I really do think more young people should turn to entrepreneurship. It has worked well for me. — Agustino

This is a terrible terrible strategy for the majority of people. US data from 1994-2015 shows that the typical survival rate for a new business drops precipitously within the first five years to 55% likelihood of survival. By year 10 it's around 30%, and these survival rates don't say anything about profit rates, so the owner could just be making ends meet. It's also fair to assume that those who do start businesses tend to not have debt (e.g. student loans), or have a certain socio-economic network that can help support them through investment and guidance. Starting a business while in debt, without a supporting network is highly risky, and lacks stability. If your goal is to save for a wedding than the stable choice for the vast majority of people, for better or worse, is a wage job.

I'm from Eastern Europe, and here weddings are expensive, however, most people recover the money and actually earn much more from the wedding than they spend. That's why many times you'll find that people buy a car, or buy an apartment after a wedding. The reason for this is that here everyone who attends is expected to give money. So, say that a couple attends your wedding, they will give at least $50 (and quite a few will give more). Now if you have ~400 guests, roughly in groups of 2, that is at minimum 200*50 = $10,000 — Agustino

Well I have no idea what currency you are using, but in USD the average wedding costs between $25K - $40K, and typically includes about 100 - 200 guests. Guests give money as well (typically $75 - $125 depending on how close you are with the couple), but often times a registry is set up where guests can purchase certain household items and appliances for the couple (which can be as low as $30). All-in-all no one is making money from a wedding in America.

Well, if promiscuity is seen as acceptable socially, then regardless of how well I try to educate my kids at home, they will attend school, and see all the "cool" kids engaging or talking about such behaviour, and the peer pressure will make them think it is alright. That's just one example. Then I will also have to deal with friends whose marriages fall apart because of it, and so on so forth. It's going to create trouble in all sorts of ways. Do you think I'm wrong about that? I mean, the way people act and behave, and the cultural expectations around certainly influence what is happening. — Agustino

Teenagers have sex. No one is going to stop that. You can either educate your kids about sex, and protection, etc. or impart your delusion by telling them your false, unsubstantiated, quasi-religious views on the matter, but you're not going to stop people from engaging in it. I have no clue how having a few sex partners in your past contributes to divorce, and I've already shown you that 1) the average number of sex partners has decreased from the Boomers to Millennials, and 2) monogamy is, overwhelmingly accepted over polygamy. I can't speak to what occurs in Eastern Europe but we aren't experiencing moral depravity simple in America at least because of sex.

I'm very curious why you think that social conservatism cannot be squared with an unfair or tenous economy? — Agustino

If social conservatism includes getting married young and having children young, which you suggest, then those added expenses are antithetical while living in an uncertain economy or one with stagnate wage growth, and other increased expenses.

The problem is social conservatism cannot be squared with individualism, even in a modest sense of the term, and empirically it can't be squared with an unfair or tenuous economy.

I live in society, it's affecting me, as it happens all around me. My children will live in society too, it will affect them, and so on so forth. You're behaving as if I lived on a mountain, and not sorrounded by the activities that other people engage in. — Agustino

How, exactly, does this affect you?