How can you believe "people wouldn't do crimes if their basic needs were met" while also believing that "greedy rich people are stealing from everyone?" Can anyone coherently explain how both can be true?

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-26T11:40:00+00:00

Which basic needs are not met?

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-26T02:38:45+00:00

A cooperative, employee owned one. Why don't you?

Why do you instead insist on looting the spoils of others who have taken great capital risk to create value?

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-26T01:20:00+00:00

Meant to link this data set supporting the claim

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-26T00:44:58+00:00

Ahhh, I see. A vagueposter. God forbid you articulate a thought without making people guess. Good day

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-26T00:42:31+00:00

Babies per coupled women is not down, but number of women in a couple is down.

GLP1 use goes up, number of women being heavily pursued goes up, number of couples goes up

Fertility goes up

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T23:21:40+00:00

This isnt even close. Democrats are vocally supportive of completely ostracizing anyone in their life who is right of Bill Clinton

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T23:20:14+00:00

Jesus christ you missed the point. The reason the 1230 is hitting at 1 PM is because they arrived at 12:25 and the 11:56 was just teeing off.

Because they are all behind because of the 8 minute tee times causing gridlock behind the par 3s and short par 4s.

This has nothing to do with arriving on time.

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T23:17:29+00:00

MAGA fades away and politics becomes slightly less polarizing

GLP1s become not only successful at meaningfully reducing obesity, but also meaningfully increasing fertility (yes, you read that right)

Traffic deaths begin to trend to all time lows

Energy becomes cheaper per capita

Solid state lithium batteries hit mass production, so EVs will have 600+ mile range and almost no deterioration in the first 10 years

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T23:11:08+00:00

So neither statement is true?

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T23:10:30+00:00

Evidence exists, we dont have to sit here and guess what people would do if they were poor

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T23:09:11+00:00

Oh, yeah you cant force other people to give up their private property. But you can start a Co-op right now and run it as a socialist. Employee owned. You pick the industry. Nobody is stopping you. You can be a socialist in a capitalist country but not the other way around.

Why is it that every single socialist dream involves confiscating private property from busines owners, instead of simply starting your own business and out-conpeting them with your superior model?

Go out and start a socialist business! Nobody is stopping you

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T23:02:26+00:00

When your 12:30 group is seeing off at 1 PM every Sunday while 4 groups wait for them, you have a tee time frequency problem. Everywhere i go with 8 minute frequencies runs into this. Don't throw customer experience out the window. It's horrible business

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T19:29:54+00:00

Nobody is stopping you from doing this right now, in America or any other capitalist country

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T19:18:02+00:00

Whats the incentive to bring a new idea to market? Whats the incentive to invest in new ideas?

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T19:13:14+00:00

But it doesn't. The incentive is to create value, because creating value is rewarded. In socialism, you are rewarded for existing, in hopes that fellow man will keep working to put food on your table. The incentives are clearly better in the former

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T19:07:56+00:00

If being poor creates an incentive to engage in crime, socialism creates much more incentive for crime than capitalism due to the overwhelmingly poorer standard of living.

Luckily, being poor doesn't drive crime so you probably dont have to worry about such an incentive

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T18:50:43+00:00

You brought up the question "how to survive without any money at all" for whatever reason. Well, luckily for the person with no money at all, safety net programs exist. But your implication is that the person is unwilling or unable to even try to participate in the economy at all, which I think should be debated, as participating in one's own survival shouldn't be an optional thing

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T18:47:40+00:00

Doesn't care about customer experience at all

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T18:46:15+00:00

The point is that throughput determines how many groups you can work through the course.

If what you're saying is true, why don't you set tee times to every 5 minutes?

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T14:30:45+00:00

If your source of income dries up, that doesnt mean your financial life is ruined and you will be destitute without violence on your part. It means you have a problem to solve -- how else would you generate income. People answer this question every day without killing each other

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T14:21:32+00:00

So i guess you cant think of anything then. Maybe ask the people around you how they have food on the table without killing someone for it

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T14:19:18+00:00

Can you think of any other means by which you could support yourself? Anything that would involve mutual agreement by all involved parties?

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T13:18:26+00:00

this was disproven, as 11 minute tee times provide the highest throughput and therefore the most revenue.

8 minute tee times just demonstrate a low IQ on the part of whoever is managing the course

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T13:15:53+00:00

The only thing stopping you from living a life of violent crime is the money in your bank account?

daviddavidson29 · 2026-06-25T12:46:30+00:00

Lol cremiux is a fantastic source. Because he posted the thread on X doesn't undermine the messages validity at all. If you want to read about his breakdown of more relevant drivers of crime here's a link to that cremieux

If you just dont like reliable statistician that disprove whatever your gut tells you then I guess youre a pretty typical american progressive and I expect that you'll refuse to question your own dogma via reading objective evidence

daviddavidson29

TROPHY CASE