1/
good thread by @AlanMCole
my one quibble is that humans have loss aversion, and we have it for a very very good evolutionary reason: going from 1.05 x as many calories as you need to live to 0.8 x is far worse than going from 1.05 x to 1.3 x is good.
-
Show this thread
-
2/ and doing a ponzi scheme, of any sort (pensions, issuing corporate bonds, national debt, etc.) where the end is baked in, and it's not a soft landing, means that you are dooming the people caught holding the empty bag 50 years down the line to go from 1.05 x to 0.5x >>>
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
3/ in order that some people who are already doing decently enough in the present, can go from 1.05x to 1.1x
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
4/ Progs, who are almost always the ones behind this "pay off the voters now and !@# over the voters later" kind of play (because they are simultaneously emotive and bad at math) claim to hate inequality, especially inequality against people who are "marginalized" and unlike us
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
5/ ...and yet, progs are the ones most to blame for these various doomed pyramid schemes that deal absolutely crushing blows to people who are marginalized (the unborn) and who are unlike us because they live far away (in the future).
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread
6/ This out-of-sight-out-of-mind stance doesn't even require a distance of 50 or 100 years. You can see it in abortion politics. "LOL, !@# that kid - he's not even due to be born for another six weeks".
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.