- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 51,239
- Reaction score
- 21,234
6+
I made the mistake of assuming we both understood there were limitations on everything. You've jumped the shark and now have started talking about mass murder as it pertains to "fairness". There's not really much more to say. I say "Do whatever it takes to avoid economic ruin" and you have essentially replied "You advocate taking flamethrowers to every old folk's home and senior living complex, you barbarian!"
This conversation has more than run its course when the dialogue veers off the tracks like that. Have a good day man.
You're handwaving again with your questions. That policies tend to have winners and losers is a corollary of scarcity. Qualifying this premise with the condition "at least economically" is not a ridiculous "throwaway line" because the ethical thing to do virtually always economically harms some parties. If someone gets less money because he's contributing to a fair arrangement that replaces an unfair arrangement, he's harmed economically but he's not unethically harmed.
You say you don't know if cancelling student debt is a good idea, but you've eluded saying what you think makes something good policy. What makes a policy "good" in your view? Again, is it maximizing growth? What if the government killing old folks en masse would increase growth -- easing strain on the medical system, reducing the spread of the virus, and halting scarce resources from going to a population who was not producing value? Here are your words:
Now, I'm guessing you're going to say, "I don't support that!" To which I'll reply: Oh, suddenly fairness matters. So much for your bluster from your high horse about people whining about fairness and that instead they should support policy based on ... something you've yet to disclose.
There's not a huge difference in urban vs suburban home prices. Certainly not enough to explain declining home ownership based on younger people flocking to the cities when taking into consideration that home prices have gone up much faster than wages.
I made the mistake of assuming we both understood there were limitations on everything. You've jumped the shark and now have started talking about mass murder as it pertains to "fairness". There's not really much more to say. I say "Do whatever it takes to avoid economic ruin" and you have essentially replied "You advocate taking flamethrowers to every old folk's home and senior living complex, you barbarian!"
This conversation has more than run its course when the dialogue veers off the tracks like that. Have a good day man.