switchboard_pete

you’ve been scammed because that’s only 6

the tld is .uk in that case

just take the L good lord

i don’t get it

Like, what “leeway” does Kamala have to say anything different than she already has, which she could shift to?

a significant enough chunk of her voter base credibly withholding a vote based on a desired policy change would force a shift toward that desired policy change

i’d say biden’s platform in 2020 was significantly more left-wing than clinton’s in 2016

But that was then, and this is now.

this is the same “it’s too late” or “it’s too unprecedented” or whatever you want to pick that was exactly the justification for biden being kept in as long as he was

I think it really does show voting not for a 3rd party but voting for the other side b/c “bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe” (the title of the post), specifically wrt genocide.

people the post targets aren’t voting red. they’re just not voting at all, or voting third party. it’s an argument to a position held by an insignificant fraction of the left-anti-harris crowd.

it doesn’t address the core issue they have. they’d say that continuing to vote for the least-bad party is the reason both parties are bad, and that at a certain point you have to attempt to force a more radical change.

they’re not suggesting a third party candidate can win

they’re suggesting that the democratic platform can shift

which is what people said before biden was replaced

which is what people said before biden was replaced

it was her fault for spilling the e. coli in her lap

anybody on the left withholding their vote at this point fundamentally disbelieves in a system with exactly two discrete options, so this type of post doesn’t persuade anybody

literally is objectively correct in this context

Hackers acting as if they’re doing a public service by bringing down a free publicly accessible tool is a new level of assbackwardness.

are the zendesk hackers the same as the ones who brought down the website initially?

giving somebody a gift card for a product or service you think they specifically will enjoy is objectively more personal than giving them cash, yes

imagine a spherical fox in a vacuum

i see you realized that building factories isn’t free

congratulations

If you actually responded to what I said rather than deflecting you might learn something.

restate your point if you fluffed it up the first time, but no, what you provided initially was devoid of anything worth responding to

You keep repeating yourself rather than look at what I’ve already said.

because what you’ve said is nonsense that doesn’t address anything i’m saying

let’s keep this real simple: do you agree or not with the fact that spending resources to set up a factory in location A means you, right now, have fewer resources to spend setting up a factory in location B?

if no, where do the additional resources come from in the here and now? and, more importantly, why has china not already constructed an infinite number of factories?

I directly responded to the comparison to US offshoring that you made to explain why this is different.

and your argument boiled down “us bad china good”

If you took ten seconds to think about it, having any financial component makes my point correct and yours incorrect.

genuinely, what are you talking about?

• you can’t invest in factories abroad without by definition investing less in factories at home because resources are finite
• us outsourcing started with “it’s just supplemental” too, so you can’t use that as a bulwark against any notion of further outsourcing

and you’re coming at me to say that if money changes hands then that’s not the case?

my guy i already had the last word of consequence like 5 posts back when you stopped actually responding to things i was saying in a coherent way and started arguing with china

since then it’s all been for the love of the game

If you have constant demand for the good

quite literally, you’re now arguing with your own hypothetical

“As long as your demand is growing” -> not constant demand

but it doesn’t matter because i foresaw your difficulty with this one, and addressed both the case of constant demand and growing demand

all you do is just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over

maybe check your post history i think the call might be coming from inside the house on this one

you are comically bad at backing up a worldview you evidently hold so strongly, and it’s utterly fascinating to me

Having more apples doesn’t make your existing apples less valuable.

having a surplus of apples means you value an individual apple less, yes

that’s how the concept of “having things” works

As long as your demand is growing ALL your factories are just as valuable.

so if 20% of your factories are now somewhere else, whereas before it was 0%, then the share of value taken up by domestic factories has decreased, as has the share of demand they’re managing to satisfy by domestic factories

if china completely stops building new factories at home, and in 30 years 90% of their factories are abroad, and 10% are at home, would you say their industrial base had been “hollowed out”, even though the absolute number of factories at home is the same?

If you can’t even understand what the article says then there’s no point having further discussion.

i pointed out that there was no point discussing this further when you said that china was wrong about their own economy, but for some reason you insisted on it

It’s not an economy where the market makes decisions where labor and resources are allocated. The government decides that and the market acts as an allocator within that context.

this is like saying “the government doesn’t decide that; steve from the finance department decides that”, or “the market doesn’t decide that; a distributed network of private investors decides that”

if the government bases their decisions off the market, then the market is the one making those decisions, just like steve is making his decisions based on what he’s been told to do from the government, and just like investors are making their decisions based on what they think the market is telling them to do

you can quibble about how the same market effects will produce different results, but the result is still a market economy

i’m genuinely so excited for your next fruit analogy that accidentally explains why you’re wrong

If I have two apples and I buy a third apple then I’m not less invested in the two apples I already had. Let me know if I need to explain this in simpler term for you.

you just gave me an example that proved my point

if you have two apples, you can afford to lose one of those apples less than if you had three apples. try again.

you also probably wouldn’t spend a decade obtaining an orange if you were only interested in your two apples forever and ever.

you also replied to the bit that i explicitly called out as not relevant, which is hilarious

“if you only have time to go to one shop, then going to the grape shop means you can’t go to the apple shop”

did it get through to you? are you about to reply telling me that any shop that sells grapes would realistically also sell apples or something? that seems in line with the quality of debate you’ve been providing thus far.

Well China doesn’t say that, and linked you an article explaining what China actually says.

literally linked you a source referencing china explaining their own economy

and again, the interpretation you linked to isn’t mutually exclusive with “market economy”

China is increasing capacity to supplement the domestic capacity.

being less dependent on a thing automatically makes you less invested in a thing, but this is besides the point

if you spend decades of effort ramping up manufacturing in one location (away), then that’s decades of effort you didn’t spend ramping up manufacturing in another location (at home)

i literally cannot fathom how you’re so furious to be wrong that you’re still arguing contrary to that

I’m arguing that Chinese understand how their economy works better than an ignorant internet troll.

well china say their economy is a market economy, and you say otherwise, so i guess this puts you firmly in the ignorant internet troll camp

This is not a long thread, go back and read it instead of making vapid replies here.

your last three replies haven’t even been making an argument. they’ve just been quibbling over some definitions you’re wrong about, and shooting yourself in the foot by making my case for me.

what are you even doing here?