Obviously a lot of people benefit in the short term from not emancipating poor people. In the long run it doesn't make economic sense though. — Benkei

According to selectorate theory it makes political sense in an autocracy, and that’s why democracy tends to be favorable for the masses.

I already offered an extreme example of predatory lending, that of payday loans.

If I lent you a sum of money for low enough interest you could make a profit by simply investing it. Is that a simple enough example of non-exploitive lending with interest? With a little imagination I’m sure you could think of many other non-exploitive lending scenarios that charge interest.

The basic principle you don’t seem to appreciate is that a borrower can produce something of greater value with the borrowed capital.

Lending at interest is a transaction where someone who started out with more than they needed (enough to let someone borrow some) ends up with more than they started with, and someone who started out with less than they needed (requiring them to borrow something from someone else) ends up with even less than they started with. That is inherently exploitative of the poor by the rich. — Pfhorrest

Nonsense. It’s basically an exchange of value (including future value), which as I’ve explained can be generous from the lender side, fair, or exploitive. Whatever capitalistic incentives may lead to exploitation aren’t inherent in lending itself.

My analysis of the root flaw of capitalism could be phrased as "all lending (at interest) is predatory". There are degrees, of course, what we normally call predatory lending is just such an egregious case that we can't help but see what's going on there. But fundamentally all lending at interest (and rent more generally, as interest is just rent on money) is of the same qualitative character: those who have wealth to spare can profit at the expense of those who need to borrow it just to keep going. — Pfhorrest

Lenders or renters may give more than they receive in order to help others, make a fair trade, or take advantage of those in a weaker position.

You seem to be claiming that lending is inherently predatory in nature.

Payday lenders have low losses and high profits (34%+ return on investment).

you can associate greater wealth with greater numerical gains just like you can associate greater wealth with greater numerical loss. it's two sides of the same coin and to ignore one side isn't right. at the end of the day though it's up to the portfolio owner how much risk they're is prepared to take on. i know plenty of well off people who take very little risk.

i don't necessarily associate less wealth to greater costs, but i do acknowledge that poverty has costs. if by costs you mean investment losses this is definitely not the case. — BitconnectCarlos

A clear example of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is found in predatory lending, which pretty much all banks are involved with, btw. With low-risk, someone with 10k to spare could get a high return. Low-income and desperate borrowers pay a ridiculously high-interest rate.

One must hedge for the notion of life allowing one to live in accordance to one's own Will... — Wallows

rather than the will of nature (will to live)?

I guess that I just don't see how the concept of nirvana or "inverted nirvana" (suffering) plays a useful role in what you're saying.

If we saw through the illusion then life/death wouldn't be so much of a concern, so they say. "Inverted Nirvana" is samsara or a continuation of suffering.

Perhaps you should use other terms.

"inverted Nirvana" is antithetical to the concept of Nirvana because the concept points to an absence of polarity. For instance, in Buddhism, nirvana is samsara. The difference is considered to be merely an illusion.

The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle — PuerAzaelis

What kind of dreamworld does Sam live in where this only applies to religion?

philosophically speaking, when do we require new technology? When do we decide that the human race has reached stagnation and cannot collectively produce new 'content' to keep itself fresh? — Jhn4

Practically speaking, no new content is required for freshness, and indeed it may only be the habit of desiring new content that leads to the dissatisfaction of stagnation. To imagine Sisyphus happy we must abandon our old habits.

... The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act had absolutely nothing to do with.

So we already have a number of mistruths in only a couple of your posts. That’s Trump numbers, pal. Better watch it. — NOS4A2

You wrote that EESA had nothing to do with it so if there's a lie it's your lie.

What are the other lies? You appear to read about as well as Trump.

The The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was under Bush. — NOS4A2

And that alone resulted in the economy that Obama left office with. Is that what they teach you to say in troll school?

The website for Obamacare cost over a billion dollars. — NOS4A2

Trump will probably spend half that much just golfing.

It’s a shame Obama was so effete and ineffective and boring. All that truth-telling got us nowhere. — NOS4A2

Well, besides rescuing the economy from the great recession, passing health care reform where over 20 million Americans gained coverage, and so on. One notable achievement that's related to not being a childlike liar, Obama was the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to serve two terms with no serious personal or political scandal.

No, it doesn't. — NOS4A2

There you have it, Tim.

I wager it gets tiring holding people to inhuman standards. — NOS4A2

It's exhausting in Trump's case.

Just a little graphical comparison for you:

How about a practical test.

Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels.’ Some are very tough, hardened criminals.

I was the person who saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your healthcare.

'Years of economic decay are over' because Trump 'reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration.'

Some of the Democrats have been talking about ending (coverage for) pre-existing conditions.

In many places, like California, the same person votes many times. You probably heard about that. They always like to say 'oh that's a conspiracy theory.' Not a conspiracy theory, folks. Millions and millions of people.

Over the last two years, the number of murders in America and America’s major cities has dropped, unlike here (Chicago), by more than 10%.

Originally "almost all models predicted" Dorian would hit Alabama.

California "admitted" there were "a million" illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election.

There has never been, ever before, an administration that’s been so open and transparent.

"The noise (from windmills) causes cancer.

Democrats let him (cop killer Luis Bracamontes) into our country," and "Democrats let him stay."

Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad," including Somalia and Ukraine.

Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and the rest of the corrupt Democrats made a promise to their crazy left-wing base that they would impeach me even BEFORE I took office.

Today I opened a major Apple Manufacturing plant in Texas that will bring high paying jobs back to America.

Does this stuff ever get old, @NOS4A2?

There are studies that claim the US spends twice as much on healthcare and performs less well in medical outcomes compared to countries such as the Netherlands.

The cost of insurance and what it covers depends on factors like the size of the subscriber network, employer contribution, age, etc. For extensive medical care it's likely there would be deductibles, copays, and coverage limits, even for good plans.

In regard to paid leave...

That wouldn’t be a good test because everyone knows that socialists eat their children.

I'm not American so I've got excellent social security but I do pay about 52% taxes after deductibles. I wouldn't know what a realistic upper middle class US family income would look like. — Benkei

Devils advocacy aside for a moment, would you prefer the current American model, all things being equal? The tax rate would be about half of wherever you are.

Funny question for someone who lives in Ojai.

The social safety net is there to make sure that even if tragedy happens to you, you won't become destitute. — Artemis

This also helps to stabilize the economy and reduce the severity of downturns.

You repeated the same lie. Perhaps a little skepticism moving forward? — NOS4A2

Now you're suggesting that Trump did not claim that criticisms to his administration’s actions surrounding the coronavirus issue (cuts to CDC funding etc.) are a hoax? You previously indicated that he did make that claim when you wrote: "That's right."

Two Democrats lying about something doesn't constitute a plot by the Democrats to oust the sitting president. I think we can agree on that.

Secularist acts moral, you bet your sweet toosh that s/he is acting moral because s/he is moral. — god must be atheist

Nonsense, it’s immoral to bet on sweet tooshes.

I love TDS. — Nobeernolife

How about DDS (Democrat Derangement Syndrome)?

The playbook is old at this point. But for them to try to use a pandemic [coronavirus], and seemingly hope that it comes here and kills millions of people so that they can end Donald Trump's streak of winning, is a new level of sickness. — Lil Trump Jr.

How does one seemingly hope for millions to die, btw? I suppose that delusions may seem real. Maybe that’s what he means.

I was claiming the headline was false, fake news. I would also claim that what Trump said was true. — NOS4A2

It was fake but it's true? Lol.

So Bloomberg and Biden engaged in a little harmless hyperbole. Isn't that what you say when Trump lies? Pretty dumb to lie about it though when the truth would have been nearly as damming, that the Trump admin tried to cut CDC funding but was prevented by congress.

That’s right. He did not say Coronavirus is Democrats' 'new hoax'. So why would the NYT say that? — NOS4A2

I've pointed out that in the posted video there's a clip of Trump saying “and this is their new hoax.” Granted that it's not always easy to decipher his rambling nonsense, but are you claiming that he wasn't referring to Democrats and the coronavirus? If he wasn't then who and what was he referring to?

Did he or did he not say Coronavirus is the Democrat’s new hoax?
— NOS4A2

Calling it a hoax is to deny that it is a problem, and it doesn't matter who "their new hoax" refers to. The denial itself is the problem. — creativesoul

Just to be clear, I believe Trump is claiming that criticisms to his administration’s actions surrounding the issue (cuts to CDC funding etc.) is a hoax, or something like that, and not that the virus itself is a hoax.

Lol

The title reads:

“Donald Trump: Coronavirus is Democrats' 'new hoax'”

I image that most Trump supporters have poor reading comprehension, or just tend to see what they want to see.
— praxis

Did trump say that? No. But anti-Trumpers like to believe what they’re told. — NOS4A2

In the posted video, Trump says “and this is their new hoax.” If you’re too brainwashed to believe that he wasn’t referring to Democrats and the coronavirus, well, then there’s little chance of me opening you eyes.

The title reads:

“Donald Trump: Coronavirus is Democrats' 'new hoax'”

I image that most Trump supporters have poor reading comprehension, or just tend to see what they want to see.

Where exactly did they say that?

While in the process of politicizing the Coronavirus, Trump claims that the Democrats are politicizing it.



Junior goes much further.



They seem to have a low opinion of their supporters intelligence.

Mostly my guiding principle is liberty and freedom when it comes to politics, so I err on the side of personal responsibility rather than government coercion. — NOS4A2

With freedom comes responsibility, as Roosevelt said, but unfortunately there is mountains of evidence that proves the fact that many industries, in effort to increase profits or please shareholders, act irresponsibly in regard to sustainability or long-term human flourishing.

As I said from the start, branding is a form of promotion. Promotion isn’t necessarily commercial, obviously.

I'm not trying to promote anything here — Pfhorrest

Of course you are. Your personal logo, for instance, gives the impression (to me at least) that you value nature, and in effect promotes that value.

You might say that you’re not deliberately or consciously branding. If so, it’s kind of funny that you’re using a method of deliberate branding (logo design) so casually. Not to suggest that there’s anything wrong with that, other than possibly being blind to ones own motivations to some degree.

Speaking of wisdom, the maxim gnothi seauton comes to mind.

Utilizing a logo is an aspect of branding, which is a form of promotion. So the question appears to be:

Should I promote my book or myself on this forum?

That depends on what your goals are and whatever strategy you may have developed for achieving those goals. I would guess that you're at least mostly interested in promoting your book and haven't really put much thought into a plan for doing that, or perhaps even a firm end-goal. Of course, a common approach is to use a personal brand to promote a book, in which case you might want to reconsider branding the book itself, with a logo and whatever else.

Note that an essential quality of branding is that it should be as meaningful as possible to whomever you're trying to promote it to. I find the book branding to be meaningless, if not plain false. The "book of questions" is really a book of your views or a 'book of answers'.

Your personal logo gives me the impression that you value nature.

What’s stopping you from protecting the environment, providing solutions and providing the services you demand of government? What’s stopping you from mobilizing your countrymen to some form of action? — NOS4A2

This mobilization of countrymen would require some sort of organizing administration or, as some might call it, government. Hey wait a tick, we already got one.

Besides, Denmark and Sweden are mainly populated by Danes and Swedes, who have the massive advantage of generally NOT being American. ;-) — Wayfarer

I can’t help thinking that a society that could elect, and in all likelihood re-elect, Trump, may not be sufficient developed for increased socialism.