dventimi

22 ms·

211.
by dventimi 2y ago
> What, you think these places are a shining beacon the moment they stop exporting a single resource? I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase?
212.
by dventimi 2y ago
I'm not. It wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't help much, either. Evaporate the wealth of about 400 other people, then go after the next level of 4000 and then the next 40000 and then we'd be getting somewhere.
213.
by dventimi 2y ago
> Can you do it without absolving others, like the city, of their responsibility to make sure housing gets built? Why would I do that? I never said that tech is the only cause of homelessness. Outcomes can result from multiple ca
214.
by dventimi 2y ago
Not for the people living in those conditions, it isn't.
215.
by dventimi 2y ago
> Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite. Sounds like they might be your opponent! > since weal
216.
by dventimi 2y ago
Not all people on Earth exist in the present, either. At any given time in the past there were fewer of them, and at any given time in the near future at least there probably will be more of them. Does that mean that the number of peopl
217.
by dventimi 2y ago
> Please provide a source. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-... > Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still
218.
by dventimi 2y ago
The impoverishment has been going on for a long time.
219.
by dventimi 2y ago
>> Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Yes This ought to be good. Let's hear it. > these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society
220.
by dventimi 2y ago
That there was homelessness before fentanyl. I believe that was quite clear in my previous comment.
221.
by dventimi 2y ago
> Less affluent is the default state of things. No it isn't. > It doesn't require a conspiracy or domineering other to create it. I never said anything about a conspiracy. > You can argue the more affluent countries didn&
222.
by dventimi 2y ago
>>> At any given time are there, or are there not, finite goods and services? >> At one given instant sure > Wrong, wealth is not finite Perhaps you could make up your mind. > Yes, people who lived in preindustri
223.
by dventimi 2y ago
> Don't have what? new jobs and high pay > your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less My argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad for the people who don't have them . Is
224.
by dventimi 2y ago
I suspect these people do not have ready access to air conditioning, electricity, or even antibiotics, and they're not going to get it simply by appealing to "technology." https://www.worldbank.org/en/cou
225.
by dventimi 2y ago
> This is circular reasoning It's not circular reasoning because it's not even reasoning. It's a claim. I have not attempted to justify it. I could, and I may, but I haven't tried to (yet). > This is stated with
226.
by dventimi 2y ago
> The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty. How do you think the less-affluent countries became that way? By enriching the affluent countries, that's how.
227.
by dventimi 2y ago
I think it's abundance in one's material conditions. That's not technology. Technology is knowledge. That's completely different.
228.
by dventimi 2y ago
> At one given instant sure [goods and services are finite] I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. > the key thing is that over time the collection of goods and services grows. That's cold comfort for people wh
229.
by dventimi 2y ago
> So new jobs and high pay are bad? They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are also "workers".
230.
by dventimi 2y ago
At any given time are there, or are there not, finite goods and services?
231.
by dventimi 2y ago
Sure. Plenty of its employees live in SF.
232.
by dventimi 2y ago
There was homelessness in SF in 2000, before fentanyl was available on the street.
233.
by dventimi 2y ago
That's technology, not wealth.
234.
by dventimi 2y ago
No, tech is largely responsible
235.
by dventimi 2y ago
The above commenter is me and I say that goods and services are finite because they are. So what if there were fewer in the past and there will be more in the future. We live in the present and in the present goods and services are provided
236.
by dventimi 2y ago
If goods and services aren't finite then they must be infinite. If they're infinite then how can they be increasing?
237.
by dventimi 2y ago
And it created homeless people in San Francisco.
238.
by dventimi 2y ago
It is zero sum: there are finite goods and services in the world, and we're all competing for them. There are losers and winners. "That's just zero sum thinking" has been the smokescreen for gullible people for at least
239.
by dventimi 2y ago
I couldn't agree less. Wealth depends on poverty because poverty creates wealth. You'll never get 10x Musk's without creating homeless people. We compete with each other for resources using wealth and power, which at the high
240.
by dventimi 2y ago
We don't have to give up on logic. Just use it to point out hypocrisy. Extra points if you use it to needle politicians, policymakers, and pundits as opposed to ordinary voters.

More ›