I wonder if this isn’t the differentiation though. No other company is willing to sink anywhere near as much into paying engineering salaries as Tesla.
I remember choosing majors and realizing that as a computer science major I could do political science, but it would be a lot harder to go in the other direction. Maybe there’s something similar going on here: it’s a lot easier for a company that’s great at engineering to learn manufacturing than for a company that’s great at manufacturing to learn engineering.
It's causing disenfranchised citizens to believe in a global conspiracy to subvert a man with a trail of failed businesses and marriages, as well as, dictatorial aspirations. It should be treated as a Hollywood recycled plot, but people are actually buying into it. Buildings burning will be the least of our problems if it continues to spread.
If the state establishes a habit of executing QAnon believers in the street, or using violence against them even when they're being peaceful, and the liberal president doesn't think it's a big deal, and liberal citizens think they deserve it, then it will be understandable for them to start burning things.
I did. Murders are up 50% but overall crime is flat, including overall violent crime. The percentage is misleading, too, because the raw numbers are still quite low. NYC doesn’t even crack the top 70 deadliest cities in the US.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
No, but I'm old enough to remember when all the major media told approximately the same lies so that they were part of the shared, accepted “truth”, which is probably what you are thinking of.
How can you be sure of that? The 1% own airlines, cruise liners, factories that produce buses and cars, etc. The other 99% ride on those for enjoyment and business. The problem with your argument is that you somehow believe that the 1% is warming the planet and the only people benefiting are the 1%. This is your flaw. The 1% are rich because they add value to the other 99%. Without the 1%, you wouldn’t have air travel or buses!
Ownership by and of itself is not socially useful. If an object transfers from Scrooge McDuck to Daddy Warbucks, and nothing else changes, nothing useful is done.
The 1% get excellent educations and have amazing social networks. We need a scheme to encourage them to become socially useful.
My preference is 99.5% estate taxes,[1] coupled with heavy taxation of unearned income (money you get without having to work for it).
1. Conserving estates made sense when wealthy male life expectancy was in the fities, and welathy males did not start to produce offspring until their forties; daily life was more dangerous (naked flames and heavy drapes, ill-treated and cantankerous farm animals everywhere, and on and on); and society was a lot more volatile than it is now.[2]
These days, a wealthy male will die in their nineties, with children in their sixties. The kids don't need the estate; they've already had all the help they can make use of.
This is what that hero of much economic theory, the rational social planner, would do to derive a return on investment from wealthy families.
2. The period since WWII is the longest period of peace in Europe for several hundred years, if not ever.
> Ownership by and of itself is not socially useful.
Tell that to the various socialist and former-communist countries where industrial capital has depreciated to nothingness with a lack of maintenance because the capital lacked a beneficial owner.
It’s 1% of the world. So incomes over $100k I think.
This is a world issue. There are billions of people that have never flown on an airplane and probably billions of people that have never been in a bus.
The 1% are largely the only people unaffected by climate change while it greatly effects communities in the global south.
Cruise liners given as an example of how beneficial is the richest 1% to humanity that consists mostly of poor people? Wow. I had to check if a cruise liner is what I think it is.
This generic argument against taxes and regulation doesn't apply to an antitrust discussion.
The point is a giant company can easily outspend the government and bury it. This runs counter to your "think of the little guy!!!" argument being used to defend Facebook.
