Anonymous #1 14w

That’s not why they think it has fallen lmfao

77

Anonymous #1 14w

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

65

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 14w

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 assorted_rocks 14w

They’ve done everything wrong!

18

Anonymous #1 14w

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 14w

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

8

Anonymous #1 14w

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

2

Anonymous #1 14w

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

2

Anonymous #3 14w

More like WANGHAF

9

Anonymous #10 14w

Well said!

8

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

7

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

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

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

4

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

0

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

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 #2 14w

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

1

Anonymous #10 14w

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

1

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 14w

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

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

0

Anonymous #10 14w

the benefits are that buses are free, hope this helps

4

Anonymous #2 14w

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

1

Anonymous #10 14w

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

All do those things? Try that again

0

Anonymous #2 14w

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 14w

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

1

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 14w

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 14w

god i hate econ majors

3

Anonymous #2 14w

Once again, not an Econ major

-1

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

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

1

Anonymous #10 14w

oh you’re a bootlicker that explains it

1

Anonymous #2 14w

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

0

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

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

0

Anonymous #10 14w

ah you’re right maybe we should crucify them instead

1

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 14w

Demonstrate the relevance of what you just said

0

Anonymous #10 14w

demonstrate my nuts in your mouth all hail emperor mamdani

6

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

1

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

1

Most impressive response

1

Anonymous assorted_rocks 14w

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

-10

Anonymous #14 14w

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

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

1

Anonymous assorted_rocks 14w

can we make it to 100, chat?

-1

Anonymous assorted_rocks 14w

LETS FUCKING GOOOO!

2

Anonymous #10 14w

I just know you’re hot ffs

0

Demonstrate that

1

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

1

Just say you were wrong, we won’t judge

1

Once again, not demonstrating lack of veracity

1

False dichotomy.

1

Anonymous #6 13w

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

1

Anonymous #8 13w

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 13w

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

-2

Anonymous #1 13w

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

3

Anonymous #1 13w

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 13w

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