Anonymous #1 1w

That’s not why they think it has fallen lmfao

77

Anonymous #1 1w

you say this as if they aren’t just saying he’s gonna do 9/11 2 bc he’s a muslim

64

Anonymous #1 1w

90% of the attacks I’ve seen on Mamdani have just been that he’s “communist” (he’s not) or that he isn’t white. Like he has stated exactly how he is gonna make his plans happen. It’s much better than Trumps “concepts” of plans that don’t exist.

58

Anonymous #5 1w

Just because bigots criticize Mamdani for moronic things doesn’t mean normal people can’t give him the criticism he 100% deserves.

18

Anonymous #1 1w

The “bigots” you are talking about are the leaders of the Republican Party who endorsed his opponents. This is literally what you were voting for if you didn’t vote for Mamdani.

7

Anonymous #1 1w

this is funny bc both the intention and outcomes of most of trump’s policies are fucked & yet here we are. y’all are worrying about a MAYOR

6

Anonymous ascended_male_revolution 1w

They’ve done everything wrong!

18

Anonymous #1 1w

Policy’s intention: make life better for the lower and middle class Policy outcomes: rich people throw a mr krabs themed hissy fit and the US government sabotages them at every turn

-7

Anonymous #1 1w

How can you criticize his outcomes if he hasn’t even been sworn in yet? There’s an order of operations here bud

7

Anonymous #1 1w

Okay so what’s the “criticism he deserves” then?

2

Anonymous #1 1w

If you think you’re getting misinterpreted, can you please clarify?

2

Anonymous #3 1w

More like WANGHAF

9

Anonymous #10 1w

Well said!

8

Anonymous #10 1w

I hate Econ majors so much

1

Anonymous #13 1w

I am not an economist major, it’s just basic history and economic principle. Why do you hate the truth?

7

Anonymous #10 1w

Because it's a dumb downed version of a complex system. By your logic every park should be riddled with drugs, they arnt. Every library should be a homeless shelter, they arnt. None of these have barriers to entry. You're over generalizing the basic supply demand graph to things it can't apply to.

20

Anonymous #13 1w

I’m not using the graph actually. Nor does my analogy apply to these things. A park has a consistent value and maintenance . It is a piece of land, distinct from transportation capital. Libraries are the same. However we know that section 8 housing does turn into drug dens. I don’t understand why every critique of economic principles refer back to a “graph” as if anyone is actually using it. I am using a principle that has proven true in literally every situation it has ever been applied to

0

Anonymous #13 1w

Human behavior and the underlying reality of scarcity do not change with the system Higher demand and lower supply leads to rationing of resources, that’s simply how reality works. There is no getting around it no matter how complex the system. Furthermore history displays this amply

2

Anonymous #13 1w

Not to mention parks turning into drug dens isn’t some novel occurrence….

4

Anonymous #10 1w

Your 3rd sentence on your first post is by definition the supply demand graph in words in this context. The principle you are using right now is proven by the supply demand graph. You say since my examples have a more concrete value (land) they differ but that's just not true considering busses have value as well just not as much. This argument they would turn into drug pins undermines the fact there are positive externalities generated by free buses that encourage investment from the gov.

5

Anonymous #10 1w

You keep saying you're not using the graph but your entire argument is based on the supply demand graphed dumbed dumb for an intro class. Your using that principle that isn't capturing the whole picture

2

Anonymous #13 1w

I’ll wait for you to recognize that “supply and demand” does not require a graph to be realized

0

Anonymous #13 1w

it also relies on the mayor just not fucking doing anything about it? this argument relies on mamdani sitting with his thumb up his ass lmao

6

Anonymous #13 1w

Free buses encourage higher taxes, more investment to handle increased supply, etc. all the problems I listed earlier. Furthermore I never made the argument that “value” was the difference (or sole difference), it’s a different form of captain. Furthermore where is the demonstration for your position

0

Anonymous #10 1w

I'm well aware but building your argument on that idea that stems directly from the graphs shows you don't. I'm using that graph because that's how you build on that simply principle that allows someone to capture the full picture.

6

Anonymous #2 1w

Doing what about what? Creating a problem and then solving it with what? More taxes?

1

Anonymous #10 1w

free buses are worth any drawbacks they might bring. he’s the mayor. it’s his job to deal with said drawbacks.

1

Anonymous #13 1w

The principle can exist independent from the graph and has proven true in all circumstances: - inflation - the job market - market prices Etc

1

Anonymous #2 1w

You haven’t proven that. It’s his just to manifest solutions for unforced errors, so that he may reap the benefits that you cannot name or prove? Phenomenal

1

Anonymous #10 1w

Solving the problem of positive externalities not being captured. Your not grasping that part and you seem to just ignore the entire argument of it

6

Anonymous #13 1w

Because you cannot generate this named externalities or explain how they outweigh the negatives

0

Anonymous #10 1w

the benefits are that buses are free, hope this helps

4

Anonymous #10 1w

Buddy all do those things come from the supply demand graph. Where do you think prices come from? Supply demand? So the price of labor that impacts the job market comes from sd. Inflation comes from sd. Market prices is LITERALLY sd

1

Anonymous #2 1w

So we refer back to my first argument then, good talk

1

Anonymous #10 1w

so we refer back to if there are any issues then mamdani will fix them because he doesn’t sit on his ass building golden ballrooms, good talk

1

Anonymous #13 1w

All do those things? Try that again

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Yes yes, demonstrable issues with the plan, and the solution is “he got it”, whilst the benefits can’t even outweigh the intrinsic negatives let alone any that manifest later. Comical

0

Anonymous #10 1w

Your first argument literally is flawed but you just ignore it. There are incentives to free busses that can only be captured in gov interference. Lowering transportation costs allows more dispensable income to be spent else where in the economy and money has a multiplication effect. This is all dumbed down ofc and lacks the details

1

Anonymous #10 1w

i’m not the mayor dipshit, it’s not my job to figure out solutions for your hypotheticals, it’s his.

1

Anonymous #13 1w

That money can also be spent on transportation. Furthermore increased taxation removes “disposable income”. Furthermore increased maintenance, security, capital, and labor costs that will invariably follow increase this drain. The government also only redistributes and collects currency (taxes) it isn’t creating any value (printing money does not make value) So your argument is….i said so

1

Anonymous #2 1w

It’s your job to understand the policy your lawmakers propose actually. And furthermore, why should I agree with your position if you can’t prove it? “My source is that I made it tf up”, isn’t actually convincing

0

Anonymous #10 1w

god i hate econ majors

3

Anonymous #2 1w

Once again, not an Econ major

-1

Anonymous #10 1w

Sure but that lives under the assumption that mamdami would levy those taxes on the lower income people that free busses would benefit the most. We know he isn't doing that. High income earners seeing those taxes a) don't take the bus b) have disposable income spent other places that woudlnt impact the immediate ny economy (such as vacations)

1

Anonymous #10 1w

Nah we can tell you arnt an Econ major at this point this is surface Econ knowledge

1

Anonymous #13 1w

Taxing the rich causes them to relocate capital reducing employment, wages, and quality of life. This plan is flawed from the outset (as the increased government spending needs will invariably fall upon the shoulders of the poor). Also basic economic history

1

Anonymous #13 1w

Indeed it is, but you also can’t contend with it

1

Anonymous #10 1w

oh you’re a bootlicker that explains it

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Demonstrate how that attacks my argument or why I should care?

0

Anonymous #10 1w

Taxing the rich is a myth that has been proven wrong in many instances. The money spent relocating would outweigh taxes and they wouldn't have access to the nyc luxury's (exclusive clubs, prestige colleges, their previous network)

6

Anonymous #10 1w

Can't compete with your argument because you can't understand mine

1

Anonymous #13 1w

Taxing the rich has been proven not to work by economists such as Thomas Sowell and economic history. It’s even more dangerous now with foreign direct investments. What are you talking about? The money spent reinvesting capital would have larger gains, networks can easily transcend location, tax exempt securities would lead to much lower reported taxable incomes.

0

Anonymous #13 1w

That’s nice, you haven’t demonstrated that however. Once again “I said so” isn’t a good response

0

Anonymous #10 1w

ah you’re right maybe we should crucify them instead

1

Anonymous #10 1w

Yeah using sowells Econ theory he based on the 1920s of USA definitely is comparing to current environment. Anyways studies when we were born say opposite. Stanford studies find migration happens on the margins.

1

Anonymous #13 1w

All companies migrate or report less taxable income. And yes sowells theory holds true in modern times as well. We know that the rich use tax exemptions and everyone commits to foreign direct investments (tariffs are a lovely example).

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Demonstrate the relevance of what you just said

0

Anonymous #10 1w

demonstrate my nuts in your mouth all hail emperor mamdani

6

Anonymous #10 1w

It all companies migrate why is San Francisco the tech capital of the country shouldn't it be somewhere in Texas?

1

Anonymous #13 1w

Is San Francisco a good business environment for tech? Are you implying capital has never left California?

1

Anonymous #13 1w

What about data centers? Are they all being built in California? Energy for such centers? This is all capital

1

Anonymous #10 1w

Aight buddy be fr rn. Argue with ya mama

1

Anonymous #13 1w

Most impressive response

1

Anonymous #10 1w

Because you picked one aspect of tech that's moving for cheap land. SF, NYC both high tax state where a ton of head quarters resides. Most high quality workers don't want to live near the day centers in the bum fuck no where Indiana

1

Anonymous ascended_male_revolution 1w

They’re moving out so they’ll be fine. I’m more curious how they’ll be able to afford all these social programs without their tax revenue. This is going to be very intersting

-9

Anonymous #14 1w

Lmao yea sure they will take themselves out of the nyse and pack up their buildings too. Those whiny babies arent going anywhere. All this over 2% LMAOOOO

19

Anonymous #13 1w

No demonstration 🗣️🎶 - Capital movement is Capital movement 🗣️🎶

1

Anonymous ascended_male_revolution 1w

can we make it to 100, chat?

-1

Anonymous ascended_male_revolution 1w

LETS FUCKING GOOOO!

2

Anonymous #10 1w

I just know you’re hot ffs

0

Anonymous #10 1w

irrelevant, you’re working from the same false logic that has explicitly been made up by the rich to justify the system that makes them rich. economics is mostly pseudoscience and you’re making broad claims about society based on a fucking linear supply-demand curve.

0

Anonymous #10 1w

except this literally never happens. why would they go to the effort to move because of 1%?

1

Anonymous #10 1w

lmao thomas sowell. thank you for taking the mask off. the only reason anyone knows his name is because he got paid by rich white men to say the racist shit they were no longer socially allowed to say. sowell is a hack.

1

Anonymous #16 1w

Demonstrate that

1

Anonymous #16 1w

That’s nice. That doesn’t demonstrate that his economic theory lacks veracity. When you can do that come back

1

Anonymous #16 1w

There's no point in arguing with this dude. He just sidesteps your argument and brings up something unrelated. He did give me a good laugh bringing up sowell to "prove" modern Econ theory though.

1

Anonymous #13 1w

Just say you were wrong, we won’t judge

1

Anonymous #10 1w

Nah bro go ahead and keep trying to prove points using sowell who doesn't believe in his work being peer reviewed by economist and works at Hoover 💀

1

Anonymous #13 1w

Once again, not demonstrating lack of veracity

1

Anonymous #18 1w

Not taking an opinion from someone who doesn't know how to use a period.

6

Anonymous #5 6d

False dichotomy.

1

Anonymous #6 6d

Its okay to worry about both Trump and the mayor of the largest city in the union.

1

Anonymous #8 6d

The same way you can criticize tariffs before they’re implemented. It’s been tried before and we know how it ends.

0

Anonymous #9 6d

He has god awful economic policy proposals, openly supports authoritarianism, and is completely inauthentic.

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

Over the course of US history, they worked actually. You should read the Tariff history of the USA. Good book

3

Anonymous #1 6d

How does this address what I said? Economists also said the economy would’ve crashed by now. Economists said price controls and current manipulation was good as well at a time. I’ll repeat myself, over the course of USA history, tariffs have indeed worked. Do you think the USA was founded in 1990?

0

Anonymous #10 6d

Thats not what economists said. They said that the current tariffs would reduce expected growth which is exactly what we’ve seen. You do realize the experts in 1990 could look at data from the past, right?

0

Anonymous #10 6d

Tariffs work to protect some sectors in the country. Targeted tariffs work very well. The sweeping tariffs trump has implemented is what economist refer to when they said he was going to crash the economy. Also using tariff data in the 1900s (mostly post ww2) doesn't prove much since USA still had its comparative advantage in wages.

1

Anonymous #13 6d

The reason why we haven't seen a bigger crash is because a lot of the tariffs aren't actually in effect. The sectors targeted by tariffs today have seen price increases

1

Anonymous #10 4d

the economy has crashed… but we’ve had such insane (fake) growth in the AI sector that it looks like GDP is going up. In reality if you ignore the AI sector (which is all based on being overvalued) we’re in are recession. you know what happened the last time the US did broad tariffs? it was in 1930 and is was a major contributor to the great depression.

2