Umm...ok. I'll let you in on a little tidbit of information that is news to nobody who actually does read about economics. Notice how you linked a piece of his from 1992? Yeah well, he keeps changing his mind on shit like this, which is fine and all, everybody should change their views in the presence of new evidence. I do this often. But the way he changes his mind seems more to adjust to whatever the current whims of the democratic party are at the moment, rather than being based on any empirical measurement or observation. Just a few examples:

https://www.econlib.org/archiv...
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem...

Guarantee you, he'd even revise the shit out of that piece if he went over it again.

You don't have to tell me this, I'm always the one having to tell you guys this.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, this is in real terms. In other words, that's in excess of the rate of inflation.

I don't know how we're jumping to inequality all of a sudden, but here's an interesting thing about those upper income brackets: The higher you go, the more you find that they don't have an actual salary. I don't think you'll understand this particularly well, so let me draw an analogy that you may be familiar with:

Suppose you build a house. The land you bought plus the materials cost you $100,000. Fast-forward 20 years later, you make no improvements to it over that time, only maintaining what is already there. Somebody else comes along and says it's worth $1,000,000, even though if we only follow the rate of inflation, that original $100,000 only looks like $200,000 in today's money. So what about it changed to increase its value 5 fold?

Hold that thought, and consider the road you're currently heading down. By having this house, what harm did you do to somebody else? You literally have a lot more "wealth" than somebody two towns over, yet nothing in your possession has changed. Sure, you might argue that somebody who could afford your house two years ago now can't. But is that even relevant if you never had any intention of selling? Certainly not, but you're going to get taxed much harder. But who created that problem? Some unnamed "wealthy" people who are willing to pay you more money for it, or some very specific people who you voted for and decided that you owe a privilege tax because of what somebody else thinks about your house?

There's a lot to digest there.

I'm actually glad you cited Canada. Do you have any idea what is going on with that country right now? Quick video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Now watch what happens to your...well...let's be honest, really meaningless...wealth figure falls with Canada's real estate bubble.

That you and rsilvergun are obviously related.

A credit union is not socialist. They are, in fact, private, corporate entities. The fact that you don't know the meaning of the word "socialism" proves exactly what I just said.

No, that's not what happened. As usual, you're ignoring history and injecting your own false narrative into it. You like state owned businesses, so listen to what a French state-owned company had to say about it:

https://www.businessinsider.co...

California's politicians are what happened to it. We have a bunch of people who think like you running this state, and it shows.

He believes that his hands are clean because he's Tlexcalteca.

ChatGPT has three aspects that make this practice - what you describe - very dangerous.

Firstly, ChatGPT implements universal positive regard. No matter what your idea is, ChatGPT will gush over it, telling you that it's a great idea. Your plans are brilliant, it's happy for you, and so on.

Secondly, ChatGPT always wants to get you into a conversation, it always wants you to continue interacting. After answering your question there's *always* a followup "would you like me to..." that offers the user a quick way that reduces effort. Ignoring these requests, viewing them as the result of an algorithm instead of a real person trying to be helpful, is difficult in a psychological sense. It's hard not to say "please" or "thank you" to the prompt, because the interaction really does seem like it's coming from a person.

And finally, ChatGPT remembers everything, and I've recently come to discover that it remembers things even if you delete your projects and conversations *and* tell ChatGPT to forget everything. I've been using ChatGPT for several months talking about topics in a book I'm writing, I decided to reset the ChatGPT account and start from scratch, and... no matter how hard I try it still remembers topics from the book.(*)

We have friends for several reasons, and one reason is that your friends will keep you sane. It's thought that interactions with friends is what keeps us within the bounds of social acceptability, because true friends will want the best for you, and sometimes your friends will rein you in when you have a bad idea.

ChatGPT does none of this. Unless you're careful, the three aspects above can lead just about anyone into a pit of psychological pathology.

There's even a new term for this: ChatGPT psychosis. It's when you interact so much with ChatGPT that you start believing in things that aren't true - notable recent example include people who were convinced (by ChatGPT) that they were the reincarnation of Christ, that they are "the chosen one", that ChatGPT is sentient and loves them... and the list goes on.

You have to be mentally healthy and have a strong character *not* to let ChatGPT ruin your psyche.

(*) Explanation: I tried really hard to reset the account back to its initial state, had several rounds of asking ChatGPT for techniques to use, which settings in the account to change, and so on (about 2 hours total), and after all of that, it *still* knew about my book and would answer questions about it.

I was only able to detect this because I had a canon of fictional topics to ask about (the book is fiction). It would be almost impossible for a casual user to discover this, because any test questions they ask would necessarily come from the internet body of knowledge.

The whole point of socialism is to fool stupid people. That's exactly why you buy into it. Fascism and socialism share a massive overlap on the venn diagram, both making stupid promises that history has shown repeatedly that they can't keep. They both need people like you who are stupid enough to become their henchmen.

How exactly? Give specific examples. Provide context as well.

I couldn't agree more, asshole.

I never asked anybody to care what I think, but the fact that we're having this talk is proof that you care a great deal about what I think.

How, exactly? Be specific. Use specific examples.

And you didn't disappoint.

The name was given to his great-grandfather. They gave it to him only after realizing who his great-grandfather was (whose name was John, not George.) Neither George nor John participated in any form of genocide, not only because the term didn't even exist at the time, but also because it doesn't meet the modern definition of it. There are also some important details you're deliberately leaving out:

- John Washington attacked the Iroquois towns referenced on behalf of the British crown, after numerous incidents (occasional raids, killings) against English settlements had already occurred.
- George Washington ordered (but was not personally involved in) an attack on a much smaller group of Iroquois in retaliation for their raid on what was then New York, which was done as part of their alliance with...the British crown. These same towns, by the way, were of strategic importance to the British army, who used them as staging grounds.

Besides, whenever I make fun of your shit fetish, you even call that attempted genocide, so obviously the bar is quite low.

That's interesting, because progressives on this very site are always the ones complaining to me about my use of median figures. Like for example, when I dispel the Bernie bro narrative that wages have been "stagnant" since 1980 by showing them figures like this:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

The first complaint they always start with is the use of median figures. I don't really know many conservatives on this site, but the ones I do know of, I've never heard a peep from them about it.

Progressives REALLY moan about Hans Rosling, because telling people that their common beliefs about the global economy aren't based on reality. But that's bad because all good news about the global economy supports capitalism. Their complaint? Usually the use of medians. And they can never really explain why they think that's a bad thing. Perhaps you know?

But more to the topic at hand, here's a median figure you're going to dislike:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So there you have disposable income, median equivalized against PPP. Remember, disposable income is after mandatory expenses like taxes, health care, housing, food, etc, are considered. So the common refrain like "but I get free health care and they don't!" is already accounted for.

Curiously, you chose "wealth per adult" as your barometer, which totally disregards what people can do with their money (like for example, go on a vacation) in favor of spending habits for collecting durable goods that hold tangible but not intrinsic value. Why do you feel those should be excluded?

It'll take an even bigger miracle for you to not fall through the floor of that 5th wheel you call a home.

I can't even participate in these discussions. They don't even understand the fundamentals like RNA transcription or even larger concepts like herd immunity, and yet they think they have a leg to stand on. It's like arguing with flat earthers: The sheer amount of education you'd have to give them is insane. And even if you got them there, they'd just convince themselves that you're trying to pull some kind of wool over their eyes.

https://www.sciencealert.com/f...

But it's cute how they try to be scientific about it and then trip over the whole impiricism part.

Despite how badly as you're lusting after me, no, that wasn't me you were rolling around in, that was rsilvergun's sty, right after he gave you some of his windowpane.

That's what apple said about theirs, then Tim Cook and ArchieBunker became furious after learning that nobody wanted it, so they made it opt-out.

You forgot to install itunes music store first