Not really. My parents are wall street CEO’s. . . But most of my friends make sandwiches, know what I’m saying? I never applied “required criteria” to people to make friends with. Just sort of made friends with the people that were around me that did similar things I wanted to do. Which is entirely opportunistic - and dating is the exact same.
Whether you focus on one gal, or multiple, is besides the point. Teach your bro to learn to have a good time around women rather than try to sleep with every chick he meets. It’s the whole “when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change” mentality, but totally works with attraction. So many times people who struggle to get laid are struggling because that’s all they care about - but when you start learning to actually have a good time around a woman and literally just be her friend, you’d be amazed at how easily she’ll want to sleep with you.
Not to come off as misogynist there - that’s not my intention. Just trying to shine a light on that fact that meeting people is A) easy and B) opportunity is likely knocking in peoples faces every day but they don’t recognize it. For what it’s worth, I love dating and building feelings with one gal.
i think when ur younger, your friends can vary. but as you age. your friends are basically a representation of who you are as a person. so choose wisely.
women are flakers. which is why you have to come up with high volume. plus its a more efficent use of your time.
i am currently in that stage where i am focused on 1 girl. its nice to have someone to talk to when yo u are down. i even told him that. but i told him to say that, is kind of gay. anyways its kind of like investing right. when u dont kno what ur doing, diversify, but if you feel you have a good opp. you go all in.
labour union density peaked in 1954 and started a long decline from there. so this is also a large part of the equation. union membership is so marginal today that they have difficulty arguing for economic concessions. considering we can’t do much to rebuild labour unions, taxation is really the only lever we can pull to bring about some equality between capital and labour.
Make sure you say no homo after making a statement like that. You straight up said what you said was kind of gay, and this could be interpreted as you trying to say you’re actually gay. It is particularly dangerous, as it seems based on your description, that he is capable of physically overpowering you.
So, what you’re saying is that me attempting to argue that ‘TDE’ is a myth and non existent because of the correlation between lower taxes and accelerating inequality is simply just a “rationalization” where as in all actuality the exogenous causal relationship is undiscoverable and not actually there.
I can live with that I guess. Which just takes us full circle back to what ohai mentioned “it works sometimes for some and not sometimes for some”.
On second thought, let’s not get into economics debates, tis a silly science anyways.
I don’t see why income inequality is a problem. Leave the money in the hands of people who know how to generate value. You give it to a idiots and they will spend it on indulgences, useless degrees, and destroy capital. If you have 2 countries and you leave money in the hands of the best and brightest and one where you take away from them and give it to low income people to spend… doesn’t take a genius to see how competitive each nation will be in the next 10, 20, 100 years.
Some of the wealthy’s spending will trickle down but even if it’s a tiny amount, no one is entitled to anything anyways.
I thought you wanted to Make America Great Again, Atlas Shrugged and all that? Maybe a start would be the policies that were in place during that period (90% marginal tax rate).
History provides some pretty compelling counterexamples to “wealth inequality not being a problem.” Not to mention the greatest progress in the nation came during the periods of highest marginal tax rates and middle class expansion. It’s no surprise that a vibrant and mobile middle class is a better recipe for growth and productivity than a few feudal lords seeking rent. The whole line about people who know how to allocate capital (McKenzie Bezos $37B for banging a rich dude) vs those that don’t is borderline retarded (borderline to be polite). Putting 25% of the nation’s wealth in the hands of 0.1% to create a caste system doesn’t achieve anything and a ramping deficit and aging infrastructure (coincidentally built in the 50’s and 60’s) argue against the current system. A large part of the population could be leveraged more efficiently if assets were more efficiently allocated.
That’s not what he said at all. He basically said there are multiple factors and labor unions are one of them. Since there’s not a way to control that factor effectively at this stage, that would leave marginal taxes as the other effective mechanism. Sheesh.
Agree with bs. Too little capital for the Poors will make them unproductive and dumb.
There needs to be competition so that the best are at the top!
lastly rich people are more likely to be traitors. They’ll move wherever it’s convenient for them and take the money. I kind of like how China can strip you of everything! Sometimes you need punish traitors to deter future traitors.
Lmao, my dude over here thinking that rich people = automatically smart. Let’s take a look at Mr. President. Managed to bankrupt casinos and is still rich because his daddy committed tax fraud to bail his son out. Entrenched wealth and benefits does not equal effective allocation. It’s bullshit that the best indicator of your adult socioeconomic standing is what your childhood was like. Not your intelligence/work ethic, but wether or not your parents are loaded.
higher wealth tax and lower or at least not 90% income tax is likely the best way to make capital more efficient. the quasi-libertarian in me doesn’t love the idea of the government knowing every little thing about every single citizen (necessary to effectively tax wealth) but i like the idea of combating dynasties/legacies and motivating all to work towards something productive in life.
the funny thing is that the US is the absolute worst with respect to taxing dynasties/legacies and is also the biggest champion of promoting a supposed meritocracy. at the very least, if you want to avoid a wealth tax, y’all need to get rid of unique US tax advantages like inherited IRAs and incredibly low taxation of capital gains and dividends, at least for rich folks. the day of reckoning is coming, perhaps sooner than expected given interest rates are looking like they’re going to be negative everywhere at some point meaning every pension plan will be wildly underfunded and every life insurance company will be insolvent, not to mention how negative rates would affect SS sustainability.
the upside of negative rates is while the rich will need to be taxed more to somewhat maintain pension benefits for the underclass, they will be paid to take out jumbo mortgages like they do in Europe. the rich can just take out a mortgage and stuff the cash in a safety deposit box and make risk free dough. only risk is the bank gets raided by the underclass.