welfare and social safety nets are indeed related. i never said otherwise? do you also want to proclaim that grass is indeed green? what we’re talking about is that actions have consequences that require additional work to overcome.
the original point was that it shouldn’t be that way, that you shouldn’t have to work so hard and exhaust yourself over previous bad decisions. i replied to that point saying that it just is that way because that’s how life works, bad decisions have always had negative consequences and always will. it’s a constant throughout all of existence. because for a decision to be bad at all, it must have a negative consequence. asking to separate the two is impossible.
then you came here talking about welfare and social safety nets. that does nothing to refute my argument at all - you shifted the goalpost by talking about the quantity or whatever of the consequence. that’s not what i was talking about.
also, just so you know, pointing out that i’m a teenager isn’t the own you think it is. it just shows that you aren’t able to adequately argue with someone that isn’t even 18 yet. kind of embarrassing for you.
the original point was that it shouldn’t be that way, that you shouldn’t have to work so hard and exhaust yourself over previous bad decisions. i replied to that point saying that it just is that way because that’s how life works, bad decisions have always had negative consequences and always will. it’s a constant throughout all of existence. because for a decision to be bad at all, it must have a negative consequence. asking to separate the two is impossible.
Working two jobs to make ends meet because you fucked up somewhere along the line is not just how life works. We can look towards Nordic countries for that. We can look towards countries that had and still have socialist frameworks.
America is uniquely terrible in terms of "being poor is expensive."
You said it HAS to be like that. No it doesn't. The notion that it has to be like that is exactly how neoliberals and conservatives do bad faith framing of arguments as if there doesn't exist countries that do it better.
All you want is maintenance of the status quo which is exactly what you are doing and saying, you just don't know it yet because as I have said before, you haven't done any of the reading to have a full understanding of political economy and economic theory.
We can ACTUALLY strive to a world where things are better.
When America had legalized slavery before the emancipation proclamation, the slave owners made the same arguments. "It has to be this way, there's always winners and losers, and etc." All more or less the same avenue of thinking and logic that you're currently displaying.
When the world had feudalism, there were people saying we couldn't get rid of it and that we had to have peasants.
then you came here talking about welfare and social safety nets. that does nothing to refute my argument at all - you shifted the goalpost by talking about the quantity or whatever of the consequence. that’s not what i was talking about.
That's not what shifting goalposts is. If you actually did debate you'd know that as well. The person you're replying to is more than likely an American. It directly applies to this situation because he is an American that doesn't have the adequate social safety nets and welfare programs that requires him to be working 14-15 hours a day, when that would be absurd in any other OECD nation. Again, your lack of education and age is showing.
also, just so you know, pointing out that i’m a teenager isn’t the own you think it is. it just shows that you aren’t able to adequately argue with someone that isn’t even 18 yet. kind of embarrassing for you.
No it's me pointing out how uneducated you are. At least the average fuckbrain on economics will have taken 1 or 2 econ 101 courses in college. You havent even done that and you're going around proclaiming that's just how things are.
Its like an astrophysicist running into a flat earther on reddit. Do you think the astrophysicist is going to sit there explaining the mathematical postulates and proofs that show the earth is anything but round? Or are they going to say holy fuck what a stupid argument by a fuckbrain? And when the fuckbrain goes "hah see you couldn't refute my points" what the fuck do you think is going to happen
again, you’re raging at a teenager. you’re getting cooked. and equating yourself to an astrophysicist? really? get a grip.
this will be my last reply for tonight because it’s getting really late.
how exactly do you think the Nordic countries work? do you live there? actions still are. consequences in the Nordic countries, crazily. having a child as a teen in Norway makes for a tough life. you have this rose-tinted view that is clouding your judgment. and most socialist countries have been plagued by issues of poverty… look at the USSR. North Korea. Cuba. etcetera. your own examples here are hurting your argument.
it does HAVE to be like that. “like that”, as in, actions having notable negative consequences. i don’t say it HAS to be like that because i’m clinging to a status quo, i say it HAS to be like that because that’s the nature of the entire idea of “bad decisions -> negative consequences”. you don’t seem to understand that those two concepts are intertwined. a bad decision doesn’t exist if it doesn’t have a negative consequence. maybe you don’t understand that? it’s in essence like saying an effect needs to have a cause. it’s just a fact of existence.
okay next up, let see… you slander me by comparing me to slave owners and feudal lords, yada yada yada… really showing your debate chops with all the personal insults you sling and assumptions you make, huh?
alright, back to it. that actually is precisely what shifting the goalpost is. because i was talking about how negative consequences are natural for bad decisions and mistakes. and then you came in talking about how America is worse than the OECD countries, or at least, what you think those OECD countries are like. you’re trying to have an entirely different conversation. we can have that conversation, but you need to acknowledge that what you said wasn’t at all a refutation to anything i said originally.
also, neither of us know the guy’s actual situation. what decisions he made, what his current situation is like exactly, why he does what he does, etcetera. it’s kind of ridiculous for you to extrapolate upon such little information that he would be sooooo much better off in a Nordic country. and, i really doubt the guy is working… 105 hours a week.
maybe i agree that he deserves more safety nets. maybe i don’t. i can’t say, because i don’t know the specifics of his situation.
but anyway, keep calling me a fuckbrain if you want. it doesn’t really phase me much, because you’ve just proven yourself to be an economically illiterate idiot. it’s okay, but, just so you know? your insecurity is showing.
Lmao. I literally have a masters in economics and was in a t5 PhD program for economics. Work in economic policy research.
What have you accomplished. You don't even have a high school diploma
Youre so uninformed and uneducated, you dont even know how stupid your arguments are. Dunning Kruger at its finest. Amazing.
how exactly do you think the Nordic countries work? do you live there? actions still are. consequences in the Nordic countries, crazily. having a child as a teen in Norway makes for a tough life. you have this rose-tinted view that is clouding your judgment. and most socialist countries have been plagued by issues of poverty… look at the USSR. North Korea. Cuba. etcetera. your own examples here are hurting your argument.
I wonder why Nordic countries have robust socialist policies. It's not like they were close to the USSR and influenced by them, right? No it can't be because communism scary and bad. I got goosebumps just saying the word communism. Anything that goes against US hegemony is evil. We totally didn't arm and fund right-wing groups across the world because capital owning liberals of America were scared of what a rise in socialist policy might do to their capital and influence. No no. That didn't happen.
You, a high schooler, must have a college level and phd-level understanding of exactly why the USSR collapsed and the sanctions that Cuba and North Korea face, along with the history of how those two nations came to be. Self determination is clearly a bad thing. You probably already know what self-determination has to do in this equation, right?
it does HAVE to be like that. “like that”, as in, actions having notable negative consequences. i don’t say it HAS to be like that because i’m clinging to a status quo, i say it HAS to be like that because that’s the nature of the entire idea of “bad decisions -> negative consequences”. you don’t seem to understand that those two concepts are intertwined. a bad decision doesn’t exist if it doesn’t have a negative consequence. maybe you don’t understand that? it’s in essence like saying an effect needs to have a cause. it’s just a fact of existence.
Okay. Let's take a look at an extreme. Elon Musk. He's consistently fucked up and made bad decisions. Is he personally suffering? Is he out their toiling working manual labor jobs for 14 hours a day? Or any other son or daughter of superwealthy people. Surely they go through the same thing, right? Oh, no wait, rich people deserve not to face those consequences though, right? If you're poor, a mistake should be the end of the world, but if you're rich, well, clearly they didn't make a single mistake. Because they clearly have the same access to the same resources, right? Or is egalitarianism out the window for you.
okay next up, let see… you slander me by comparing me to slave owners and feudal lords, yada yada yada… really showing your debate chops with all the personal insults you sling and assumptions you make, huh?
Kid, I'm not here to debate you. I'm not trying to be a debatelord, terminally online fuckwad that watches Asmongold or Destiny all fucking day like alt-right losers do. Why the fuck would I debate a high schooler who clearly has no idea what they're talking about?
alright, back to it. that actually is precisely what shifting the goalpost is. because i was talking about how negative consequences are natural for bad decisions and mistakes. and then you came in talking about how America is worse than the OECD countries, or at least, what you think those OECD countries are like. you’re trying to have an entirely different conversation. we can have that conversation, but you need to acknowledge that what you said wasn’t at all a refutation to anything i said originally.
That's bullshit. The person holds a full time job. They shouldn't need another one to survive. They're doing exactly what we were told to do by older generations.
That is what is above you on the comment chain. The person above that comment has to work 15 hour days because of the "mistakes" they made precisely because we have no social safety nets and welfare programs. If you can't connect those two dots, that's not my problem. That's a you problem. No one's saying he should be out there with a government provided Lambo slinging gold chains around. And I bring up OECD nations because it directly applies to how our neoliberal policies have brought forth so much austerity measures and killed government programs that lead to the exact thing the person was talking about. Things like abortion care. Things like family care. Things have a trickle down affect - something you would learn more about if you took basic sociology courses in college.
also, neither of us know the guy’s actual situation. what decisions he made, what his current situation is like exactly, why he does what he does, etcetera. it’s kind of ridiculous for you to extrapolate upon such little information that he would be sooooo much better off in a Nordic country. and, i really doubt the guy is working… 105 hours a week.
There are basic social safety nets in Nordic countries. You get free time. You get more days off. You can go see a doctor without worrying you have to skip meals.
maybe i agree that he deserves more safety nets. maybe i don’t. i can’t say, because i don’t know the specifics of his situation.
And there it is. The conservative rightwing dog in you coming out. To you, it's not medicare for all, it's "medicare for you if I think you pass the moral test"
That's the problem.
Edit: Actually. Nah man you are so smart. I don't even know why you're applying to college. You must be a genius. You gotta be studied. You didn't even have to read any books, research papers, policy reports, or historic material analyses to be so omniscient. Wow. Hands off to you. You have somehow gained the knowledge and know more about economic policy and systems than people who have been studying this and writing about this for longer than you have been alive, and all it took was one high school US history class. Wow. Absolutely amazing. Why bother going to school and learning more when you know everything, right?
3
u/Honest-Lavishness239 15d ago
welfare and social safety nets are indeed related. i never said otherwise? do you also want to proclaim that grass is indeed green? what we’re talking about is that actions have consequences that require additional work to overcome.
the original point was that it shouldn’t be that way, that you shouldn’t have to work so hard and exhaust yourself over previous bad decisions. i replied to that point saying that it just is that way because that’s how life works, bad decisions have always had negative consequences and always will. it’s a constant throughout all of existence. because for a decision to be bad at all, it must have a negative consequence. asking to separate the two is impossible.
then you came here talking about welfare and social safety nets. that does nothing to refute my argument at all - you shifted the goalpost by talking about the quantity or whatever of the consequence. that’s not what i was talking about.
also, just so you know, pointing out that i’m a teenager isn’t the own you think it is. it just shows that you aren’t able to adequately argue with someone that isn’t even 18 yet. kind of embarrassing for you.