We needed a report to tell us that? Well, maybe the DNC did. Everyone else kinda always thought supporting genocide was a shit idea and a bad way to win an election.

He might want to stop breaking the law, lol.

Lol what terrible research. “No! The parents have no control over their children. None! Please ignore all of human history.”

The reason the rich borrow money is to take advantage of tax loopholes. It’s not about being reasonable or what ought to make sense. They are gaming the system, that’s it. So, how does it work?

If they have investments in the stock market, then they get taxed when they sell those. So even though the investments are usually going up in value, they don’t want to sell too often. But they still need to buy things.

So, where do they get money for living, houses, cars, travel, etc? If they get paid for working a job, their income is taxed a lot, meh. If they sell their stocks, they get taxed a little, meh. But if they get a low-interest loan, that money is not taxed.

And you might say hey, money’s gotta be paid back some day. But remember, the goal is to find the loopholes, the places and times where either you don’t pay tax or you pay much less tax. And those loopholes are all over the place. In the end, the details are just boring. Most financial scams have just enough moving parts to look amazing, but if you take an hour to figure them out, it’s nothing exciting.

Historically, taxing the ultra-rich at 90% or 95% has not stopped them from staying rich, and it also helped everyone else get more social services.

Who told you that it never works? … Checks notes … the capitalists did.

Look, the rich people wrote the laws. You think they didn’t leave loopholes for themselves? … Tax law doesn’t have to make sense.

We don’t wonder anything. If you were wondering, you never bothered to think about it for more than three minutes.

That’s a problem for the future team, not the current bosses who will give themselves golden parachutes.

Yes of course it would hurt Google’s economic growth. That’s one of the good points. Why pay for new features that nobody wants to support a company everybody hates. Better to go FOSS and make the world a better and safer place, and also save your taxpayers a lot of money.

Get your ageist nonsense out of here. Old people make good and bad decisions, just like everyone does.

Oh, my dear, if it’s the same, why do internal messages at Instagram and other such companies describe it differently? They know that they can tweak the algorithm to manipulate people, and especially children, into overusing their system. You can argue with us, but it gets absurd if you’re trying to argue that they don’t know what their own data tells them.

TV can’t do that. You turn on the channel or you don’t, that’s it. There’s no real time individual manipulation. Of course TV execs wish they had that power, but they don’t, so they didn’t get sued.

Now, is it actually addiction? That’s an interesting question. Some experts say no.

And the garbage takes itself out, marvelous.

Oh my friend, you can replace open source with AI. You can do it, especially if you don’t care about the consequences…

No, they got it wrong. It was me! I am the leader! Don’t believe the feds, those lying pigs.

Most? Well that’s a nice claim. I wonder if it’s true. Kinda think not. Kinda think passiveness was more common.

Oh there you go again. Keep blaming the people for not voting for a candidate with weak values. It’s their fault, not hers, and definitely not the DNC’s. Will you blame them again in 2028, just like you did in 2016 and 2024? Or will you go get a decent candidate?

If she stays on and the federal court holds her in contempt and punishes her, maybe Donald will pardon her, so she still gets her money. So no, it’s not moral.

What could she do? She could say what exactly the feds are doing wrong, for example, with federal officers’ names and dates and details. Create the record. She could refuse to file motions supporting the feds. Then the people would win those uncontested cases. Those would be relatively moral. But she made it about herself, and that’s hogwash.

Basically you don’t understand. Investors sell when they think the companies will fuck shit up. That could be because they think the product is obsolete, or it could be that they think manglement is going to do dumb shit. Take your pick. Remember, it’s gambling about the future, not about what’s right or reasonable.

What you’re positing here is a view of life that Margaret Thatcher loved. The idea is, “There is no society. There are no laws. There is no oversight. Everything, all responsibility, all of it is 1000% individual.”

Of course in reality that’s nonsense. We live in a world with laws that are sometimes enforced, where governments sometimes protect us, because we want them to, because that’s good for us all.

But even if you believe in Thatcher’s view, then you have the problem of corporations. You can’t seriously argue that we should be responsible for everything ourselves, as individuals, and also that corporations should exist, because they are anti-individual.