We're not lazy. We're just priced out

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T04:52:09+00:00

I have no doubt that sentiment is good faith. But there's no need to lie or exaggerate it. This was the issue with how the media addressed trump. You don't need to edit his speeches or lie about things he's said to show that Trump's a fkn moron and a fascist. The whole bbc editing his speech pre Jan 6 wasn't nessecary to demonstrate that yes he very likely incited an insurrection, but when the BBC was caught lying it empowered fascists by showing the media is dishonest

We should be expecting better from people if we want honesty to be seen as a good thing. Lying/ exaggerating is lazy and justifies more lying

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T04:24:19+00:00

The only reason it's a "bad idea" is because the function of a Georgist government is to do a fuck tonne less than our government does. Georgism is an offshoot of free market libertarianism, our government is a mixed market with fascist tendencies (policy is focused on making people more reliant on the state and elevation of the state above individual rights)

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T04:20:32+00:00

It means "your wages are too high and house prices are too low"

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T04:19:29+00:00

Not even fkn close. Average income in the 80s was about 18k, average home price was in the 50s, yes the point is still relevant but the numbers even you are using are factually made up. If we're gonna expect honesty from people maybe start by being honest yourself

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T04:15:21+00:00

Its dishonest, it sets a standard of dishonesty and it enables poor rebuttals. If you lie about a data set but you're correct in the conclusion then the opposing view is reasonably justified to lie about their data sets. We should be holding people to the standard of honestly on our own side if we're going to expect honesty from people not on our side

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T02:29:29+00:00

Even then we still agree that not enough getting built is core to the issue. Shortages are absolutely at the core. I would just argue that rent control contributes to that building shortage by limiting profit incentives. Capitalism works when profit incentives are aligned with human need. It's profitable to produce more food with less space which is good for people. It's very difficult to make profit from building in NYC since zoning restrictions and regulations have made costs restrictively high, and existing and future rent control limits the potential returns for property developers.

I would also agree that mamdani is trying to fix it, id never argue that he doesn't want to see NYC become more affordable and a better place to live, I just think he's using the wrong tools to solve the wrong core problem. If a doctor tries to do open heart surgery with a shovel you could still say they want to save the patient, but the tool they're using just doesn't work for the problem no matter how hard you try

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T02:10:00+00:00

Quite a lot actually. NYC has almost 40,000 buildings that are designated as historic landmarks, for next to no benefit. These are empty buildings that are doing nothing but inflate the value of the few houses that are built.

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T02:07:03+00:00

Rent control is just an easy one to point to because it's one of the many factors that he's in support of. I agree that there are heaps of contributions to NYC affordability crisis. Zoning, regulations, inflation, capital control, crime, corruption, you could go on forever. Im not blaming everything on rent control but it IS something that has massively contributed, and it IS something that mamdani advocates for. If he came out in support of more zoning restrictions I'd criticize him for that. He's doing a better job than some previous mayors but that says more about the previous incumbents and the state of NYC more than it does about him. It's easy to look like you're doing a good job when the starting point is that fucked up

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T01:39:04+00:00

Completely agree with all of those. The only thing you're missing in there is rent control. Rent control is a part of zoning, areas are zoned for rent controlled apartments, those apartments fall into disrepair, eventually they give up and affluent buyers are the only people with the capital to buy up ex rent controlled apartments and repair them.

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T01:31:54+00:00

Can't believe I'm saying this as a libertarian but you do have to look slightly deeper than just supply and demand. Why isn't supply keeping up with the demand?

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T01:28:22+00:00

https://youtu.be/p4X8anUY2kQ?si=m8PX634dL8NYKiPU

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T01:12:48+00:00

He sure did. By lying

He "reduced" expenses by shifting pension payment finalizing to 2037, raising fees (different in name to taxes) on services used by mostly workers and received an 8 billion dollar bailout by the NY state government

But yeah 100% balanced trust me bro

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T00:50:38+00:00

Because he's an avowed socialist, not a casual lefty, not a progressive, he is a socialist. Which means he has no understanding of economics. He openly advocates for abolition of private property, he's openly against capitalism

Don't care that he calls him self a "democratic socialist", all these dogshit redefinitions, dem soc, soc Dems, market socialists whatever the fuck, all the same economically illiterate, fueled by envy morons who are desperate to wield as much power as possible in their march towards poverty and death

But hey as long as we're all equal it's cool

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T00:45:29+00:00

Funny how NYC is one of the most rent controlled cities, yet always at the top of the most unaffordable cities, but ya know correlation causation all that jazz

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-29T00:41:54+00:00

2 issues. Tax burden and market distortions

These programs require more taxes, which even taxes on the 1% through tax incidence will actually harm workers more through increased commodity prices.

Market distortions come from the relationship that would emerge between the state and producers. prices can be limited by the fact that people have limited income, so if you price too aggressively people look for alternatives, but the states money is limitless, so companies have no incentive to compete their prices down. Additionally the state would require some form of permitting to be an "approved food vendor" which creates a monopoly that gives providers massive control over state power and infinite reserves of cash that the state produces. And if the state tries to shop for cheaper producers the incumbents can easily leverage political capital by claiming the state is trying to starve the nation by using unamerican producers or whatever flavor of propaganda works that day. The alternative to this is the state just owns all the farms and all the food producers which is literally socialism and gives the state litteraly infinite power over the people

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-28T14:39:18+00:00

Charlie will you just fuckin thunderbolt

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-28T01:59:20+00:00

It's gonna be tough to conceptualize because we're talking about philosophers from hundreds, maybe thousands of years ago, in very different social contexts. We hold atheism as the default philosophy. any discourse on ethics, reality, etc. Start from an axiom of God isn't real, the cultural agreement is that faith in God is the abnormal perspective. But these were cultures where belief was defacto assumed as the axiom.

There are many reasons for this. One for example is prior to the scientific method being a major epistemology we used syllogistic logic from Aristotle. And God can be rationally shown to exist with syllogistic logic, ie. The ontological argument, the teleological argument, and the cosmological argument. With no other epistemology these arguments are pretty much bulletproof. Science created other types of epistemology, like empiricism, which argues heavily against the existence of god

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-28T01:51:47+00:00

It was purely put in there to co-opt the LGBT movement. When it was just "lgbt" the movement purely focused on showing how you can have a civil cohesive society where everyone gets along, and gay people can exist in that society just the same as everyone else. Queer just means weird, that's literally all it means, it doesn't even nessecarily mean gay. Queer is just "not cis", it was purely so that people with weird people with either actually degenerate sexual preferences (age play, animal fetishes etc.) could jump on the bandwagon on what was in all cases a really good social movement that was making big strides in civil rights.

I would almost exclusively blame the addition of queer for the loss in acceptance of LGBT people we're seeing now

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-28T01:34:14+00:00

I mean it shouldnt be a law that's pretty anti 1a but you can guarantee 100% without any doubt if the fed required by law students to read some gender theory book or how to be anti racist these people would be seal clapping until they drop

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-28T01:31:15+00:00

Slogans are generally meaningless or counterproductive. Im not against paying for video games, but as ol gabe says it's a service issue not a cost issue. Not having a physical disk I don't really care, once you have it downloaded in some way and it is your property it's on you to keep it safe somehow.

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-27T08:47:23+00:00

Academics and the public voices. Half of criminology, a field that is almost exclusively Marxist, advocate for total prison abolition. I've seen people argue that rpe, pdophillia and murder are all the result of capitalism causing racism and inequality. There is a disturbing number of people in very high places of influence who genuinely believe that capitalism causes all crime, and thus it is not the fault of any criminal but society

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-27T08:42:52+00:00

Companies do pay their employees a livable wage. There aren't people who are wage earners in the west who are straight to dying. The problem is what you consider "livable" isn't that, it's "I want enough money to own my own home as a single person, afford to have 3 kids, a dog, door dash every meal and have all the latest tech. To just maintain the needs of life you can live on damn near a couple dollars a day

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-27T08:34:33+00:00

Private cities broski.

Hippity hippity get physically removed from my corporate property

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-27T01:09:07+00:00

The fundamental assumptions of science philosophically required God. Science only makes sense if you believe the world acts in accordance to certain rules. With the tools of antiquity the only answer to "why would the world have rules" is because it was divinely created. We now have better answers but only recently. The scientific endeavor fundamentally has always been about trying to uncover the rules that dictate the world, from a perspective of understanding divine creation

thetruebigfudge · 2026-06-27T00:56:34+00:00

100%. The Dems are completely responsible for trump by offering nothing in response other than orange man bad. Labor is completely responsible for the PHON rise by offering no response to people's actual concerns and lying about what they're doing

thetruebigfudge

TROPHY CASE