I feel like I’m listening to Margaret Thatcher explain trickle down economics…
That’s because you’re deliberately misreading/twisting it, as exemplified immediately below.
More billionaires means better standard of living for everyone!
Straw man, I didn’t assert any causal relationship. I actually did the literal opposite; I refuted someone else’s assertion of a causal relationship by pointing out a lack of positive correlation between the incidence of billionaires per capita, and that of poverty in the populace.
If I pointed out that the rise of Internet porn does not correlate with a rise in committed rapes, that’s an effective counterargument to someone claiming that porn consumption increases the incidence of rape, but it’s not equivalent to me asserting that porn reduces rape.
But I have a feeling you’re intelligent enough to understand this; it’s just that your bias has clouded your judgment, and you’re willfully turning that part of your brain off, because you’ve decided I’m the Bad Guy, and being the Good Guy is more important to you than being accurate/honest.
Stop hating the rich!
You can hate them if you want, I just pointed out that it’s not useful to, and that doing so won’t do a thing to lift anyone out of poverty, which should be the actual goal. Loving the poor is a better use of your time than hating the rich.
Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off! [citation required]
Citation required for me having said that, you mean, since, you know, I didn’t. Liar.
Eradicating poverty is the thing to aim for, but … reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people …will not move the needle toward that goal, at all.
I’m BARELY paraphrasing you. My exaggerations of your statements are so slight they’re nearly direct quotes.
You speak like an LLM that was asked to respond as Friedrich Hayek fighting to defend the free market against socialism: convincing and yet devastatingly incorrect.
I’m BARELY paraphrasing you. My exaggerations of your statements are so slight they’re nearly direct quotes.
You’re not exaggerating, you’re straight up fabricating. By equivocating “reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people …will not move the needle toward [eradicating poverty]” and “Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off!”, you’ve done the equivalent of taking me saying
“Eating oranges will not cure a cold”
and turning it into an accusation that I said
“Eating oranges while you have a cold will make it worse”
Absurd. Either your reading comprehension and/or understanding of fundamental logic are seriously lacking, or you’re just a disingenuous jerk. Which is it? There are no other possible explanations for an error this basic.
That’s because you’re deliberately misreading/twisting it, as exemplified immediately below.
Straw man, I didn’t assert any causal relationship. I actually did the literal opposite; I refuted someone else’s assertion of a causal relationship by pointing out a lack of positive correlation between the incidence of billionaires per capita, and that of poverty in the populace.
If I pointed out that the rise of Internet porn does not correlate with a rise in committed rapes, that’s an effective counterargument to someone claiming that porn consumption increases the incidence of rape, but it’s not equivalent to me asserting that porn reduces rape.
But I have a feeling you’re intelligent enough to understand this; it’s just that your bias has clouded your judgment, and you’re willfully turning that part of your brain off, because you’ve decided I’m the Bad Guy, and being the Good Guy is more important to you than being accurate/honest.
You can hate them if you want, I just pointed out that it’s not useful to, and that doing so won’t do a thing to lift anyone out of poverty, which should be the actual goal. Loving the poor is a better use of your time than hating the rich.
Citation required for me having said that, you mean, since, you know, I didn’t. Liar.
I’m BARELY paraphrasing you. My exaggerations of your statements are so slight they’re nearly direct quotes.
You speak like an LLM that was asked to respond as Friedrich Hayek fighting to defend the free market against socialism: convincing and yet devastatingly incorrect.
You’re not exaggerating, you’re straight up fabricating. By equivocating “reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people …will not move the needle toward [eradicating poverty]” and “Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off!”, you’ve done the equivalent of taking me saying
“Eating oranges will not cure a cold”
and turning it into an accusation that I said
“Eating oranges while you have a cold will make it worse”
Absurd. Either your reading comprehension and/or understanding of fundamental logic are seriously lacking, or you’re just a disingenuous jerk. Which is it? There are no other possible explanations for an error this basic.