Interesting, by that logic every participant in the economy should also be required to bail out any startup that fails otherwise we’re exploiting the founders! They’re taking all the risk and we’re getting all the benefit of the services and goods they create!
It may not be exploitation, but one can question how fair is the exchange rate of risk to reward and whether answering "free market" makes the question go away.
Well yeah? We should have really wide safety nets actually, so people can try startups and feel comfortable that they might fail. What kind of losses are you envisioning - is it just salaries?
Work implies the creation of value: physical artifacts, services, or more generally, stuff that adds to the world. Capital gails isn't work, you're getting money without adding anything to the world.
The counter-examples are so obvious you didn't feel the need to cite even one?
Please provide an example of how logging in to fidelity.com to see that today my net worth increased by a multiple of my annual salary constitutes "work". Define your terms so it's clear to readers.
You’re significantly worse off assuming your government is adversarial than cooperative, regardless of what reality may be, and the majority of us know that. It’s why the chaos psyops aren’t working. We’re not happy with our government but apes together strong
These dismissals based on the source rather than the material are getting really annoying. We’re supposed to be intellectuals here, we can do better than that.
It's counterfactual. The think tank has nothing to do with Russia and official denounces the invasion and upholds Ukraine's territorial rights. They have simply written critically about the role NATO has played in making this conflict inevitable and the history of NATO sabotage of peace negotiations.
> The think tank has nothing to do with Russia and official denounces the invasion and upholds Ukraine's territorial rights.
GP did not claim it was associated with Russia or that it had made specific claims about the invasion.
> They have simply written critically about the role NATO has played in making this conflict inevitable and the history of NATO sabotage of peace negotiations.
It has been suggested that QI’s approach is insufficiently critical of Russia. A cursory search of our writings and our website shows this to be false.
I wonder why would anyone suggest that, and frequently enough they have to get out of their way to write a disclaimer?
> How is that possibly aligned with GP's blatant lies?
Mate it's 2026, your gaslighting doesn't work for a few years now.
Interesting, by that logic every participant in the economy should also be required to bail out any startup that fails otherwise we’re exploiting the founders! They’re taking all the risk and we’re getting all the benefit of the services and goods they create!
reply