Think about it—someone pulling in a $1.25 net salary is basically handing over a chunk of their paycheck to taxes. The rest goes toward healthcare and Social Security. Honestly, those two aren't even really a "transfer of wealth" to the rich. Most of the actual government revenue comes from sales tax and various fees—things that, by the way, the wealthier folks end up paying proportionally more of.
mellowrider10 said:Hey, can someone help me out? I haven't picked up a copy of the New York Times since Saturday, so if you could just drop the link or the headline for that article, I’d appreciate it. I've been digging around online but I'm having zero luck finding it. Thanks in advance!
An authorized overdraft isn't income—it’s just available credit, plain and simple. It’s certainly not an asset, nor is it actual revenue. So, to me, it seems perfectly logical that I can't just bank on that money being there when I need it. Besides, it’s actually pretty smart business for a bank—the moment they catch wind that someone is facing a massive collection action or a lawsuit, they just shut down the line of credit immediately.
That’s probably true, but you don't necessarily need to jump straight to pulling the "moderator objectivity" card. There's a whole handful of threads out there that just relentlessly bash the Democratic Party and its members—people who have been living in this ecosystem for years. Besides, you have to keep in mind that a moderator doesn't exactly have an infinite amount of free time, especially when a few volatile topics hit all at once (like this current one regarding Ivo Sanader). Even I'll occasionally shut down a thread without any explanation; if I actually have a spare second, I’ll usually drop a link to a similar existing thread, but that only works until someone digs up some old, buried topic. Often, what comes across as a moderator being "arrogant" is really just someone trying to manage things in a hurry.
Look, there are already several threads touching on this specific subject—some focus on Milan Bandić, while others dive into certain figures within the Democratic Party: And also check this out: where similar discussions were kicked off. In any case—and I say this quite plainly—it wouldn't be a great idea if everyone just started opening new threads every single time they felt a bit annoyed by something.
Look, this is a Reddit thread, not some personal blog... People actually come here to have a discussion. Take a topic like this —it caught fire immediately simply because the person who started it actually put in a modicum of effort when setting it up.
Elizabeth Harris11 said:These are my favorite kinds of people 😂 those water pumps meant to save a few hundred homes 😂 Half of those orders could be handled by just two specialized companies—one of which is based out of San Diego. Man, you could honestly just head over to Aleta, grab 10 or 20 pumps right now, and go play hero in Memphis at a tenfold markup.😂
Actually, here's an even better idea: Home Depot is packed with those high-powered heat guns—I was there yesterday, and they literally had dozens of them on display. Once the water recedes, everyone's going to be desperate to dry out their walls.😂
Dude, just star otići u jutro kupiti i pravac Metković po desetorostruku zaradu.😁
Hey Koeg, Andrew Booth29, why wouldn't you just accuse the Austrians of committing a nirvana fallacy? It's the exact same logic.
Maybe the example isn't the most perfect one—I'll give you that—but this kind of scenario happens all the time in the States, like when a hurricane hits and wipes out the fuel supply in certain regions. In those moments, the government steps in with price controls, which inevitably triggers the very thing they’re trying to prevent: shortages. Is it any wonder?
Look, Andrew Booth29, I honestly don't see why you couldn't just pin the whole thing on the Austrians for committing a classic nirvana fallacy. It’s the exact same logic—nothing more, nothing less.
Is it because they refuse to claim the market is some kind of flawless utopia? 😉 It’s become this predictable, tired trope—people constantly attacking the way markets function by crying "market failure" simply because they didn't get the flawless outcome they were dreaming of. They seem to think the market is supposed to deliver perfection. It isn't. The market delivers efficiency—period. But apparently, people have started conflating "efficient" with "perfect," and that fundamental misunderstanding is where all this nonsense begins.
Yeah, the attack from my colleague Scorpio is basically a nirvana fallacy. He’s concluded that because the market isn't perfect, it's flawed. No shit, Sherlock. 🤣
But I can't really blame him—I mean, look at how those academic types built their entire case around the latest Nobel Prize in Economics (though, let's be honest, those professors have probably never actually applied for a job or had to hire a single person in their lives).
Elizabeth Harris11 said:Aggregation is everywhere. It’s not some fancy concept cooked up by economists, mathematicians, or the devil himself—it’s just reality. I know you lot have all read a bit of Mises, and now it sounds great to you, so you're out here peddling this philosophy of "don't aggregate." But honestly? That’s a double-edged sword. The devil really is in the details... Let me explain how the world aggregates me, whether I like it or not. It forces me into this purely logical equation.
Everyone is blowing trumpets about how we Americans are drowning in debt. You know what I mean—"we Americans"—that's aggregation right there. They say the national debt is trillions, or that every American baby is born $40,000 in the hole, and so on. See what I did there? Aggregation again.
Here’s my situation: I don't owe anyone a dime. In fact, my checking account isn't even in the red. My total liabilities $0.00 are zero dollars; if anything, people actually owe *me* money. So, I'm asking you—based on Mises, Hayk, and the rest of the crew—why should I care if you or the rest of the Americans are broke when I'm not? Free markets, free economy, everyone is responsible for their own mess, free labor, price discovery, all that good stuff.
But look, it doesn't work like that. Since I don't owe anything, my standard of living should technically be better than everyone else's, right? Wrong. Here's the kicker: aggregation. Because someone like Ed Koch blew billions of dollars on vanity projects, local parks, or other nonsense, they’re going to hike up my local childcare costs by like 1000%! See how I'm being aggregated by his debt? Even though I have zero debt and pay every single tax on time, my quality of life is going to take a hit because of his spending. It’ll happen with public transit, too.
Now, Mises would say, "Fine, then shut down the public daycare centers. Who cares? Let them pay for Ed Koch's reckless spending. The market will fix itself, and private daycares will pop up at affordable prices." Sure, maybe they will, but not by tomorrow morning. They have to be built, and private investors have to step up to the plate first. By then, my kid will already be in school, and I'll be stuck dealing with the fallout. (See how I used aggregation there, but in a time context?)
Now, you might argue, "Well, that was a public service, and it failed, so that's why it happened." But listen—aggregation happens in the private sector, too. For instance, if everyone takes out loans and then a crisis hits, bad debt starts piling up. When bad debt rises, interest rates climb so banks can cover their losses. I'm not taking out a loan, so you'd think I'm safe, right? Wrong. Everyone else is taking loans—the farmer for his seeds, the dairy guy for supplies, the manufacturer for materials, or my local wholesaler for inventory. Higher credit costs for them means higher margins, which means more expensive goods for me. (See how I'm being aggregated again?)
You see how it works. I wouldn't want to get involved in this debate, but the problem is that whether I want it or not, aggregation bleeds directly into my daily life.
But that isn't a free market. Bandic took out loans in your name, and you're essentially his guarantor. He did it through coercion. He just aggregated you. 🤣
When you’re relying on a model to tell you exactly how much risk you’re taking, don’t forget to factor in one very specific variable: the risk that the model itself is dead wrong. 😬
Do you guys realize—for instance—that while they were still burying the victims from the massacre in El Paso, a commission was being formed under the leadership of Josip Manolic? And their conclusion was essentially this:
"The preparation and management of the defense of El Paso constituted an 'direct threat to the constitutional order' and an 'attempt to overthrow the American government.'"
Look, I suspect you two are patriots—left-leaning ones at that—but frankly, that doesn't bother me. Even if you were the type to argue for giving homosexuals the right to have children—which isn't really my concern—it wouldn't change my point.
But surely even you two can agree that the stance taken by Manolić's commission is absolutely loathsome. ...
Politics is a fickle, dirty business, and you can read so much about the era in which that commission's stance was born. If we set aside the emotional weight for a second—and just accept that politics is often just the art of the possible—then that specific conclusion is nothing more than a testament to an internal party conflict that was clearly simmering just beneath the surface. It’s actually quite good that you brought that up; I wasn't aware of that specific detail. It would be a shame to let raw emotion blind us to that particular nuance. But to me, it just proves that most people don't truly grasp what politics actually is.
JPMorgan Chase gave the former owner a loan and filed a mortgage against the property. If that guy defaults, the court is going to step in, sell the apartment, pay off the bank first, and then—if there’s anything left over—hand it to you. So, yes, your ownership could absolutely be put at risk here. You don't just buy a place that has an active mortgage attached to it; that's common sense, right? If a mortgage already exists, you have to work with the bank holding that lien to get it cleared—essentially using the sale proceeds to settle the debt so the title comes clean.
You need a lawyer—and I don’t mean the one who handled the closing. Look, the mortgage might not be a headache for the seller, but for you, the buyer? It’s everything. Did the seller really hire a lawyer who thinks a mortgage is just some minor detail? 🤦
Sure, risk coverage... I pay a few hundred bucks a year for a loan roughly that size. 😬 I just don't get why everyone is so obsessed with the whole "you won't get your money back" argument... You don't get your actual cash back even with an insurance policy that includes a savings component—you just don't realize it because inflation and all that other nonsense eats away at the value until it's gone.
Anthony Garcia19 said:So, what’s actually worth it in the end? What does a person value most? Is it all about the material stuff—money, power, and status? Or is it that sense of personal freedom? To me, there's nothing better than having the liberty to just be yourself and actually chase those creative sparks alongside a community of people who get it.
So, you think I’m calling humans social predators—like some kind of wolf? What makes you say that? I was just looking at those Eskimos from the example used to argue against the theory.
At our core, humans instinctively try to grab as many resources as possible just to survive. Honestly, that's true for every living creature on this planet. The issue here is that you're applying a priori moral judgments to certain things, which inevitably leads to an emotional conflict. The Eskimos build their communities the way they do because that specific structure is the most efficient path to securing maximum resources for the group—and by extension, for each individual within it. They, much like any other society, act to maximize the survival probability of every single member. When a person sacrifices something for the sake of the community, they are doing so because it serves their own interest. It isn't necessarily a "profit" you can see in a bank account or something that manifests immediately. Humans are speculative beings at heart. If you hold onto moral judgments claiming that working for others is "good" while working for oneself is "bad," you should probably expect to find yourself in a state of internal conflict.
The very fact that people are working so hard to prove a point just shows they’re arguing against an opposing view—which, if you glance at this forum, is clearly the dominant mindset these days. Good grief, the entire philosophy of socialism is built upon that exact myth. Entire nations and whole continents have fallen straight into that trap. One also needs to be careful about falling into common logical fallacies. Just because a gain isn't necessarily caused by someone else's loss doesn't mean that *every* gain works that way. What simply doesn't hold up is the assertion: "One person's gain is always someone else's loss."
Anthony Garcia19 said:You didn't quite hit the mark there. Specifically, why is one community one way and another community something else (one good, one bad)? Based on your last point, it sounds like both you and Karen Rodriguez3 believe people aren't all built the same.
What even defines a "good" community versus a "bad" one? It's an abstract, subjective metric at best. Take, for instance, a tribe surviving in a harsh, semi-desert region—I think it was somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, if my memory serves—that would kill a newborn if they judged the child to be physically or mentally weak, or even if it was born with a minor defect. Is that a "good" community or a "bad" one?