criticaljudge

5 ms·

1.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Who is starving, and why? I think if you can point to some starving children and make a public call, you would get lots of donations. If you are aware of such cases, please point them out, or contact the appropriate charities. Googling brou
2.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
The value can be infinite. If you are about to die, you would give everything to prevent it - more than you have.
3.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
"Poverty rate" is usually defined of terms of earning less than the average income minus some %. It does not imply people actually being poor, in the way people imagine poverty (not being able to afford food, clothes, housing...).
4.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
The housing situation in London may be special, and I would bet you can find socialist laws behind it that make renting out properties nonviable (like rent controls and making it impossible to get rid of bad tenants). Here in Berlin there i
5.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
In the latter case, the person who sold the castle can use the money to build a new castle.
6.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Groceries salespeople are cheap because there are many people with the skills to do that job. The same does not go for brain surgery. And you can also sell groceries just fine when you are tired - a little slower perhaps, but nobody goes hu
7.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Well you have read the description of the poor in the 19th century, so I'd say it still doesn't compare. Nobody starves in the west, unless they have a serious mental illness. But then the comparison would also be silly, as their
8.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
They have their work power - don't banks actually love it when people can't pay off their debt? If your odds of making your investment back are so bad that the bank won't give you a loan, maybe it is the wrong plan to begin w
9.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Children already start of pretty well in most parts of the world. Every child gets an education, for example. I think you would find that to make everything equal, you would have to take children away from their parents at an early age. Bec
10.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
You misunderstand the nature of money. Money means society owns something to the holder of the money. By not spending money, society is temporarily richer. Also, sorry, but I don't care how productive other people's kids are, or &
11.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Why don't parents who work hard to give their children a good live deserve to do so? It is not their fault if other people have children while they are poor. Everybody should have a fair chance, but people who worked harder should also
12.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
You assume prices were merely driven by greedy landlords. That is of course untrue. Prices were driven up by the popularity of the city, with people seeking a place to rent outbidding each other and bidding prices up. That demand will not s
13.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
So the only reason those homeless people don't get their houses is that nobody wants to give them to them? I rather doubt that number. More likely those empty houses are in places where nobody wants to live, or that are unsuitable for
14.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
The OP was specifically a bout "lazy people", so your claim that they are not lazy does not make any sense at all. You can argue that there may be no actual lazy people, but that is another discussion. "We are about to throw
15.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
The notion that children don't deserve the spoils of their parents is really crazy to me. Parents work so that they can give their children a better life. Heck, they even choose their partners to maximize odds for a better life for the
16.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Sustainable resources? Food production relies heavily on fossil fuels, for example. But I suspect the same people who make that claim you make also make the claim that it would be easy to solve the climate crisis, we'd just have to act
17.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Since people can multiply, infinite amounts is a possible scenario. Also scarcity - think of "a kingdom for a horse". If there are 1000 apples and 1001 people, and everybody who doesn't get an apple starves to death, the 1001
18.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
I was replying to an absolute statement, "every lazy person deserves x". My point is that there are probably more aspects to consider in general. Your claims that we have "more than enough" are unproven, imo. Let's
19.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
If they print money, they devalue the money people already have, so in the end again it is the people, not "government", who pay.
20.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
You can't arbitrarily set rent prices. You can only ask what people are also willing to pay. People are willing to pay because they have high paying jobs and want to live near to where they work. And that is ultimately also a good thin
21.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Isn't that exactly what banks are for - so that you can get a loan? I would expect that you would qualify for a loan if you show evidence of your upcoming employment. Many companies also pay for moves. Of course if you do all that, and
22.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
You can't deny that in terms of Bayesian probability, the odds are higher for a homeless person to be mentally unhinged than for the average person. Simply because mental illness is often the cause for homelessness.
23.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Well arguably they are not really poor, compared to those cases of poverty in the 19th century.
24.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
I think people quickly tire of it when they have to take care of those lazy people directly. I'm not saying nothing should be done. Just that it is a fallacy to think the government simply has infinite money to spend.
25.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Then as I suspected, it is just mumbo jumpo to allow people to make demands (I created the "value", so I deserve that thing). Again my question, what is the actual use for the concept? If you can not use it to determine price, wha
26.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Any pointers? I was under the impression that nobody besides socialists takes LTV serious anymore. And I gave some reasons why it doesn't make sense. I haven't heard any counterpoints that make me think investing more time into it
27.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Which one do you mean? It is true that owning stock does not entitle you to labor of a company of employees. Paying wages does. And the "value theory of labor" states that the value of labor is determined by how hard the work is.
28.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
I certainly didn't want to suggest that P/E is a reliable or sufficient indicator for good investments. It was just about this claim that everything is just gambling at this point.
29.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
But I think the opposite case still kind of holds, that with P/E you can at least see if a company is most likely not overvalued. And that was the issue in question ("everything is just gambling").
30.
by criticaljudge 6y ago
Granted it was then perhaps a bad example, as it doesn't take into account the value of the companies possessions. I just wanted to give an example to say that you can check things about a company beyond the stock price, which may be i

More ›