File: 1595383702942.jpg (2 MB, 1624x1924, 61970353_p0.jpg)
No.508147
File: 1595384223642.jpeg (480.24 KB, 750x854, 1594467894037.jpeg)
Musk will be vice
No.508162
File: 1595390867142.png (407.21 KB, 1442x716, 1498737473152.png)
>>508145You might not be old enough to remember 2015.
But I do, and I remember literally every media outlet treating Trump with 0 respect as a joke candidate like Harambe.
No.508164
>>508162to be fair, so did most republicans and their media outlets until he won 1 state in the primary
and he really has said a lot of outlandish shit, like he had plans for a new public healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc. that has all never come to fruit because they don't exist
the duplicity of them all acting like he was great the moment they realized he had a chance of winning is something I'll never understand, but it was obvious which ever party got an 'anti-establishment' candidate to the polls would win
he managed to win mostly because christy, cruz, rubio etc. are so absorbed by the party views they may as well be the same person so they had their votes divided up between them
And the other weird reality is he's way further left than most the american repub party (at the federal level at least, most state repub parties are surprisingly far left).
but the reality is without the backing of a party, you really are a joke candidate and the big players of that party ate each other up while he feasted on the scraps
No.508165
>>5081641) He did shut down immigration, even if he used COVID as an excuse
2) He did start building the wall
3) He did reform healthcare by removing the cruel law that punishes poor people $600 a year for not having health insurance (which they can't afford to begin with)
Immigration is one of the most harmful things by far to workers. The more you increase the labor supply, the lower wages will be, the less job security you will have, and the higher the cost of housing will be
Immigration = Great for rich business owners/employers
Immigration = Terrible for workers
No.508171
>>508165Most people who couldn't afford the mandate were eligible for hardship exemptions, granted I do think escalating them from 100 to 700 was dumb and I'm glad they stopped it. I think that was mostly there to try and trap the kind of people who just use the ER for everything. And at 300 a for even the cheapest health insurance for most people over 40, that's a lot of people.
Then again though poor and stressed people often file their taxes poorly and lose a lot of money off that anyways. Like I know my aunt paid it, but she's also going on 50 and still paying off her student loans, but I know plenty of struggling people that didn't pay it.
I really do wish the fed and even states would do more to publicize important financial information, especially with the internet, I think it's kind of appalling that the government website for your annual free credit reports is buried under trap links on most search engines. They do a really good job of making poor people stay bad with money.
No.508174
>>508171Being poor does not correlate with bad financial decisions.
There is poor people who are infinitely better with money than rich people.
No.508216
>>508215No it doesn't.
If you don't have money or privilege to begin with you can only wage-slave, at least in America where you would not be able to afford or get transportation to higher education.
And this wage-slaving would afford you absolutely no extra money to invest in anything but lottery tickets.
No.508221
File: 1595448244596.jpg (500.97 KB, 1500x2094, fight.jpg)
>>508174I was born in poverty and stayed there for the duration of my youth.
If you're in the west and are poor, it's because you want to be poor.
No.508222
>>508216>If you don't have money or privilege to begin with you can only wage-slave, at least in America where you would not be able to afford or get transportation to higher education.
There is no evidence to this claim.
>b-but my lifeYou're the exception, teen.
No.508225
>>508222Go ahead and say something, and I will tell you to unironically, literally, acknowledge your privilege.
Privilege that many American people never had.
If you've ever had parents, had your parents help you get anywhere work/school related, had your parents help you drive or get a car, had your parents or relatives help you in anyway
Check your privilege.
Because otherwise you'd be homeless or wage slaving and spending almost 100% of your wages on nothing but bare essential living expenses.
No.508226
>>508220noooo you can't give your money to someone else, it's unfair!
Your mental retardation is showing again. In any case even if his patrimony is bigger that doesn't mean he can spend all this money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_liquidity No.508227
>>508225There are 2,604 billionaires in the world, and 55.8% of them are self-made. That’s according to the Billionaire Census published Thursday by market research firm Wealth-X. Taken together, self-made billionaires have a total of nearly $5 trillion. Another 30.9% of billionaires made at least some of their wealth themselves, according to the report, while 13.3% inherited their wealth entirely.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-majority-of-worlds-billionaires-self-made.html#:~:text=There are 2%2C604 billionaires in,total of nearly %245 trillion.
No.508230
>>508227Define self made
I doubt many on that list were orphans scrubbing bathrooms to survive
No.508244
>>508230I don't think most of the population are orphans scrubbing bathrooms to survive too.
Your Rawlsian reasoning (implying an ignorant teen like you even know who John Rawls was) is, simply put, pathetic and shows your lack of education and brain cells.
No.508245
>>508244Yeah yeah, insult insult insult like the teen you are.
But the reality is most of these guys were from well off families to begin with.
No.508248
>>508247>They are on average smart (income and IQ are extremely correlated), work harder and (why not) are luckier.it's like 99.9% luck and the smart and working hard is the last 0.1%
>There are 2,604 billionaires in the worldhow many smart and hard working people are there in the world? I imagine it's much more than 2,604.
No.508256
>>508248>it's like 99.9% luck and the smart and working hard is the last 0.1%Are you actually that jealous or are you trolling? I am an incomparable homo
Just read a bit at how these guys live their lives, teen.
>how many smart and hard working people are there in the world? It depends on how "smart" we're talking about. If we're talking about really smart, not that many.
On the other hand, the very few people who are as smart as these ~1.3k that got rich all by themselves have different goals in life. If I could dedicate my life to studying or to become the next Warren Buffet I would gladly choose studying (I'm not saying I'm as smart as him though). That's one of the reasons why Rawls and his political theory are at best incomplete: people differ not only in their opportunities and abilities, but also in their personal choices.
In fact, very few people are willing to pay the cost (sorry for the pun) to be a billionaire
No.508261
File: 1595490009751.png (80.35 KB, 662x543, The majority of billionair….png)
>>508227Taken directly from your article, from "self-made" men.
No.508276
>>508260>Nearly 1/5 of the population of the world are Indian and Chinese women. What fraction of billionaires are Indian and Chinese women?Did you read my post? Let me quote it for you:
>That's one of the reasons why Rawls and his political theory are at best incompleteI conceded here that some equality in the opportunities are important, my point is that inequality will always exist because people are not equal in their capacities and goals.
Unlike US, Europe, Japan, etc, India and China didn't develop inclusive institutions until very recently ago, they're just catching up now. You need to property rights in order to prosper just like you need public goods, even diehard libertarians like F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman will agree on this one.
>>508261Did you read my other post. Let me quote it for you:
>They are on average smart (income and IQ are extremely correlated), work harder and (why not) are luckier.The Beatles and The Rolling Stones became the most successful bands of all time for a myriad of reasons. They were better than most. They were doing what the others wanted to. They trained more than the others. And they were luckier too in many ways. But even though being born in UK is rare, making so much success is even scantier, so they do have their merit.
No.508288
File: 1595531882270.png (11.47 KB, 529x408, supernew.png)
>>508280>This is wrong and you didn't make a single other real assertionTranslated:
>I can't refute but maybe if I say he's wrong without explaining people won't realize that.
>And you're crying about a post that says wealth is almost entirely luckBecause it isn't.
You can't say such thing without a strong statistic model. Make a survey on the topic and run a regression. If the R2 is the most important variable on the model I'll concede.
> then dodging furiously when we start talking about all the factors that have to align before someone even has a chance at wealth. Are you that dumb? Didn't you understand anything I've teached you? I didn't ignore the veil of ignorance at all.
>Get absolutely fucked, capitalist cocksuckeYour butthurt is showing, uneducated teen. Stop coping, it's your fault if you live on the trailer park. Because, as our conversation showed, you're outsmarted by some random dude on an animu board.
No.508290
>>508288I have a professionally tested (WAIS) 128 IQ. That is the top 3% of the population.
I am broke and will be homeless in the future unless they implement UBI.
Most rich people are stupid, your chart is bullshit, there is no such thing as a self-made billionaire and 99% of millionaires aren't self-made.
Being born into anything but an orphanage or family in poverty = you're not self-made.
No.508291
>>508290>I have a professionally tested (WAIS) 128 IQ. That is the top 3% of the population.That's not enough to be super rich, as my image showed. I have a 132 IQ also tested professionally (WAIS) and I'll soon be a PhD. The more I study the more I realize how mediocre I am. Not even us scholars are immune to Dunning Kruger. Now, imagine you.
>b-but it's enough to be richYour uneducated brain should understand that social sciences are not deterministic not even Marx, even if most Marxists believe he is). The word is regression. There are exceptions. That's how you make science.
>Most rich people are stupid, your chart is bullshit, there is no such thing as a self-made billionaire and 99% of millionaires aren't self-made.Translated:
>I-I'm sure every data ever is wrong because my narrativeWere you lying about your IQ. Because this kind of coupe is really, really bad.
>I am broke and will be homeless in the future unless they implement UBI.I'm glad about it. That's what you deserve for being lazy.
>Being born into anything but an orphanage or family in poverty = you're not self-made.You need to compare yourself to the average citizen. Most of people weren't born into orphanage, they are on the middle income. Again, I'm not saying the veil of ignorance doesn't exist (though you don't understand the concept as far as I see), but it's not the only principle.
No.508293
File: 1595533611925.png (Spoiler Image, 3 MB, 1080x1920, image.png)
Did somebody say billions?
No.508295
File: 1595534349314.png (12.3 KB, 616x432, 7-Table2-1.png)
>>508294>the chart is fake because it doesn't agree with meA teen at his best.
No.508296
There's literally only 180 people earth worth more than 10 billion USD.
I guarantee you the average IQ of this bunch is not even 130 let alone 150.
150 is something like the top 0.000001% of the population, and no these lucky people are generally not geniuses.
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#7e480b383d78 No.508298
>>508296>I guarantee you the average IQ of this bunch is not even 130 let alone 150.Translated:
>I can't prove a shit even thought that's the date we have, but I'll pretend it's wrong because because of copingYou should read at least this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
>150 is something like the top 0.000001% of the population, and no these lucky people are generally not geniuses.I've already adressed this topinc three or four times, if you didn't grasp it than your brain is even smaller than I thought, and that's a lot.
No.508301
>>508288I don't have to explain a refutation to an assertion without any support, teenbro.
You seem to really be in love with IQ. Explain all the circumstances by which a person develops their IQ which aren't affected by "luck". I'll wait.
No.508304
File: 1595541084331.png (18.08 KB, 719x778, Spark Chart.png)
See, here's a chart explaining how people become billionaires. It doesn't say luck anywhere, does it? Fucking owned.
No.508308
>>508301>I don't have to explain a refutation to an assertion without any support, teenbro. Yeah, like, every academic work on the area isn't support, I am an incomparable homo. Cope harder, teen.
>Explain all the circumstances by which a person develops their IQ which aren't affected by "luck". Explain what's "luck". I think you don't know what this word means.
>>508304Cope.
No.508309
File: 1595544305341.jpg (226.2 KB, 2518x1024, virgin rawls chad nozick.jpg)
>>508302So, do you think smarter people should sustain dumber people? How about workaholics sustaining lazy people. Because those two are also are at least in part luck since genetics play a large role if with we work hard or not.
You're basically supporting slavery here.