Oh yeah, those personal finance places all want to talk about the laffer curve, right up until you remind people how high the X value would be. Then, as if by magic, they dont want to talk about them anymore.

To me, those places always seems full of AstroTurfing for the idea of lowering taxes for rich people. There might be some good stuff in there but I would take them main political thrusts made with about as much salt as you can find.

Never ask a man his salary, a woman her age or a neoclassical economist what economic problems tax breaks for the rich won’t fix.

To much money to spend on health care?

Tax breaks for the rich.

To little money to spend on healthcare?

Tax cuts for the rich.

Just the right amount of money to spend on healthcare?

Just the right time to cut taxes for the rich.

Like the rest of them, hes more than happy to tax other peoples earnings, for using his things. He loves it. In fact, its his favourite part.

So, I hope no one reading this ever confuses business owners and landbastards hatred of taxes with a moral position.

They just don’t think it should apply to them.

Na, his policies were nothing close to definitive on any positions. Honestly, that part of the left has been fighting the far right so long that they’ve lost track of where the lines are supposed to be and just lie as policy.

Well known by who? Where are these people? Are they in the room with us right now?

There isn’t anything to corroborate that he was ever either one of those, let alone switched. The people who didn’t want him to win the leadership simply declared it to be thus and such. Despite their claims, that not the same thing as it being true.

The “he switch after he won the leadership” is the part they made up. You have to realise that the label of neoliberal was given to him not only by his enemies within the party but by people who also don’t actually know anything at all about neoclassical economics and simply use the term as a slur to throw at anyone right of the socialist campaign group that they dont like. In fact, the term has all but lost its meaning due to them.

You’d have thought that there was something in-between being a socialist and a neoliberal but, Apparently, were to beleive thats not the case.

The problem is presuming someone needs incentive or malice to do that. The guy was soft-left and known to be so for years, right up until the very second he ran in the leadership election against corbyns heir Rebecca Long Bailey. At that exact moment, as if by magic, he became a neoliberal.

Its almost as if people made it up.

Its missleading to bass too much on that analysis. The parties don’t compete for the popular vote but to concentrate votes within seats they feel they can win.

No one was aiming to win the popular vote. I agree that’s a problem but we can’t really read to much into the split imo.

Crypto bros who follow ultra distorted stoicism (the only good philosophy is the ones made when slavery was normalised) that believe everyone else is unaware of what very basic knowledge they world they just learned that day.

Mid twenties teenagers with 30 year old parents.

Would you still feel that way, about the very first part, if I was to remind you that some of the Russian oligarchs were crime bosses who took power and wealth by force?

Admittedly, it doesn’t have the hereditary rule part but that, for me, would simple fall under “the difference is the passage of time.” I see it much like the difference between a cult and a religion.

“Wage slave master”?

As a British person, I had a few awkward conversations with other British people when I’ve asked them to explain the difference between a royal or a higher level aristocrat and an oligarch.

It seems to be something to do with the length of time society had to endure their bastardry. Well, it’s either that or that they’re not from the Oligar region of Russia. Its one of the two.

Yeah but, if it was remotely enjoyable, then you might make 2 or maybe even 3% less profit for the lazy, workshy scroungers who own the company.

We can’t have that now can we?

I get the feeling, I really do. However, I can’t think of many things that would radicalise someone more than losing all their money or being buried under a pile of debt. Being these sorts of types, they’ll only go one way. On reflection, I’m sure you recognise the very specific and historically recognisable tinder box.

I mean, it still might not be immoral. They can all get fucked. Just, maybe not in that specific way is all im saying.

*ACAB, in their capacity as cops.

There might be repercussions, if we get caught though.

I mean, you can break any rule, law or agreement without facing repercussions, if you don’t get caught.

Breaking it in any way means you will likely have to pay back any money they gave you immediately.

Personally, I would consider that to be a repercussion.

I mean, who else other than your last employer would it be with?

Rule # 1 of signing an NDA: you’re not allowed to say that you signed an NDA.

Interesting, I appreciate it thanks. I see what you’re saying and I think you’re right. Its not right to the exclusion of something else. That was too far. I must have gotten way too excited lol.

You know what it is? I just straight up dont like it. Its about time people started calling out time on its bullshit.