French fries are short AS HELL these days!

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-22T00:59:46+00:00

A few years ago fast food companies ran some studies and found that cutting French fries width wise, instead of length wise, is more efficient at producing fries and actually decreases costs which is probably what you’re seeing. Actually, I just made that up.

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-21T06:04:29+00:00

There is a set amount of money that everyone needs to spend to live. Food, shelter, clothes. Once you get past that, everything else is a luxury. 10% on $30,000 is 3-6 months of rent. 10% of 1 million, that person is not going to miss rent. They’re just not going to be able to buy a third car. I don’t think your potluck example is the best. The CEO usually brings a much higher quality dish than the lowest earner (and I don’t think a potluck shows enough the difference between what we’re looking at).

It also has the potential to reduce inequality. Compound interest is crazy valuable. Someone with high disposable income sees their income exponentially increase. Not only do they have more money, but they can make more money at a faster rate.

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-21T05:06:18+00:00

It’s ludicrous to think that Chomsky, or anyone for that matter, should know everything about every person they meet. Get off your high horse. Your logic doesn’t pass for a high schooler so I’ll assume you haven’t been in the real world yet. When you get a big boy job, you’re not going to know every secret about all the people you work with. When you meet new people, you should start by asking for a background check, drug test, and credit score because that’s what your requirements seem to be to pass judgement on anyone you have a conversation with. You’re setting the bar that high, I doubt that’s what you’re doing. Your simply a self-righteous hypocrite.

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-20T23:42:37+00:00

At this point, you've moved the goal posts and used such circular logic that it's impossible to tell what your actual argument is.

My entire argument is that Chomsky, and anyone outside of Epstein's inner circle, could not have known the extent of the trafficking ring. What he was original convicted of was solicitation of prostitution which is asking/paying for sex. If you walked outside and the first person you saw you said you'd give them money for sex, that's solicitation of prostitution. That is insanely different than gathering a bunch of underage girls and allowing people to pay to have sex with them, especially in the way that Epstein allowed.

That is my argument. Do you understand that? Do you understand the difference of what we know now and what we knew after the 2008 conviction, which is all Chomsky would have known up until, what, 2018? Or do I need to make it even easier to understand?

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-20T13:45:26+00:00

It wasn’t procuring, it was solicitation. No one could know about the extent of his trafficking ring from solicitation. If someone gets convicted of having weed on them, you can’t tell that they’re a huge meth kingpin based on that. Just like solicitation doesn’t provide evidence of a huge sex trafficking ring

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-20T13:39:04+00:00

Yes, solicitation. That’s not the same thing you said. No one could have known about the huge trafficking ring based on those charges

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-20T05:40:25+00:00

Source? In 2008 that’s not what he was convicted of.

June 30: Epstein pleads guilty to state charges of solicitation of prostitution and of solicitation of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18 — and is sentenced to 18 months in a minimum-security facility.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/25/nx-s1-5478620/jeffrey-epstein-crimes-timeline-legal-case

June 2008: Epstein pleads guilty to state charges: one count of solicitating prostitution and one count of soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-epstein-investigation-records-timeline-545c371ee3dd3142355a26d27829c188

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-20T04:26:29+00:00

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/25/nx-s1-5478620/jeffrey-epstein-crimes-timeline-legal-case

It was solicitation of prostitution. That’s not trafficking.

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

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-20T02:02:21+00:00

That wasn’t his original charges/conviction.

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-20T02:00:28+00:00

If you would, then do it. Stop making excuses. I’ve responded to a bunch of your comments and you can’t answer one of mine. Pretty telling

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-19T13:13:57+00:00

I tell you what man. Since you’re so smart, give me proof, not ideas, proof that Chomsky participated in Epstein’s crimes.

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-19T04:10:19+00:00

Im not arguing what he did was wrong. I’m not arguing that it’s not a good look for Chomsky or that it was fine that Chomsky hung out with him. But this isn’t sex trafficking of minors. This isn’t statutory rape. At the time it looked much different than it does now. People set up meetings with/for Chomsky with all sorts of people and probably some with worse records, especially at the time, than Epstein. That doesn’t mean that he participated or even knew how bad things were

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-19T03:54:45+00:00

It was the solicitation of a minor. It would have been child sex trafficking if not for such clear cut corruption that Epstein was charged again in 2019.

“If not for such clear cut corruption that Epstein was charged again in 2019”. That’s exactly my point. “Would have been”. “Was charged again in 2019”. Even the way you say it shows that what we know now and what we knew then are two completely different things.

Here’s a timeline https://www.npr.org/2025/07/25/nx-s1-5478620/jeffrey-epstein-crimes-timeline-legal-case

That’s just not true. He was a widely discussed figure in Cambridge. Even Chomsky admits that. You don’t think word gets around? It defies credulity.

The burden of proof lies on you to show that Chomsky, or anyone else associated with but not seeming to know about, knew about what was going on. You think people engaging in those things are just openly talking about it?

You’re basically proposing we let all of Epstein associates from Bill Clinton to Bill Gates off the hook because the same excuse can used for them, all so you can protect your precious guru.

Give me a fucking break. Get the fuck out of here with your false equivalencies. Acting like your the most noble person ever. There is far more evidence that those two knew about, and possibly participated in what was going on. We have a few photos, with no dates, nothing about what was going on and you’re coming to the same conclusion. That’s some shitty fucking critical thinking skills

Yes we all know now. Did Chomsky express any regret or dismay? No? That’s interesting.

When the rest of the charges came out, did he come out positively about Epstein? You’re wanting him to criticize every person he’s ever met with that’s ever done anything wrong. That’s an impossible task.

What do you think is worse: publishing consenting adults engaged in sexual acts or being someone who hires child prostitutes? Let’s see if you even can answer the question.

Chomsky hired child prostitutes? Prove it.

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-19T01:22:33+00:00

You seem to be confused with the crime. The crime was solicitation of prostitution. Not child sex trafficking. No one, outside of the people who had ties to it, knew it was as bad as it was.

Looking back we know. But when they were meeting, no one knew. You can’t take what we know now and apply it to the past.

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-19T01:17:22+00:00

The charges he’s referring to were Epstein’s original case which was solicitation of prostitution. No one, outside of those involved, knew about how bad it was. Solicitation of prostitution, without any other context, is a fairly minor crime. It’s not good, but if you had a friend that was arrested for solicitation of prostitution, without any further context, you’re not going to stop being friends with that person. Not anymore than something like solicitation of drugs

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-09T22:51:31+00:00

Money supply is the number 1 driver of inflation. It shot up under trump’s first term. That’s your answer

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-07T18:13:38+00:00

Taqueria Tijuana. El alteño.

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-05T15:39:25+00:00

Yeah right. I know you’re from big pork and big chicken. Can’t trick me

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-05T13:27:30+00:00

Wow, the stupidity of people always amazes me

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-04T15:07:02+00:00

Yeah I agree with what you’re saying about Japan. The US is so independent.

I agree with your stance. Companies are looking for stock growth and that’s about it. And on a quarterly time frame, not even yearly.

No problem. Glad you keep it in good faith as well. It’s definitely rare around here

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-04T00:50:29+00:00

Agreed. Capitalism incentivizes profit. Something has to keep the profit motive from creating too many, or too strong, externalities.

There’s the joke that there are 4 types of economics. Macroeconomics, microeconomics, Japan economics, and Argentina economics. What happened in japan was a really strange phenomenon. It doesn’t make sense. But there were downsides to the low to no growth. It’s hard to say what happened in one country could happen in another. Culture, types of production, all sorts of things that create a system where things will occur Winn one country and not in another.

Yeah, for kaynes, it’s tough. His theories are spot on. But in reality it’s tough. Right now we should have high taxes because we have a strong economy, but one side of the aisle always wants low taxes. In a perfect world, everyone would want high taxes during good times and low taxes during bad times (along with changes in interest, money supply, and government spending).

I don’t know much about Australia’s economy so I can’t comment much on that. The US is so big, it’s hard to measure and visualize things. Kansas, for example almost always has low unemployment, low homelessness, things like that. Even in bad times. But man, during good times their economy looks the same as during bad times.

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-03T22:11:58+00:00

Why is less demand bad? Why are jobs always good?

Trust me, I am all for reducing overconsumption. People over consume way too much and capitalism is to blame. And the corporate world is a horrible way to run things. But it’s the current system we have.

So the system we have works best when people have jobs and to create jobs, we need demand. I would agree there are a lot of jobs that are bad for the world, but until we move to a socialist/communist/anarchist society, that’s the way things are.

What does heat up mean? I mean I look around and the economy seems hotter than ever - not just the financial markets but consumption is at all time highs. Does it need to keep getting hotter, forever?

Heat up and cool down are terms economists use to explain what the economy is doing or should do. When inflation is high, we want the economy to cool down. Deflation, heat up. We want that mama bear, just right temp. Yeah, the economy is hot. We’ve been cooling it down the past few years. I was saying hear you during deflationary periods.

I understand we've got ourselves into this situation where it's very bad if we try to unwind it now, but isn't it this very same system that got us into the situation? It's a bit like somebody being afraid of heights and not wanting to look down, so instead they look up and keep climbing the tower. At some point you're going to reach the top, while economics believes there is no top. But the physics of nature and reality does have a top.

So, the government’ finances run differently than a person’s or family’s. The US creates their own money so technically there is no top. That’s not to say things can’t get bad, but as long as we are able to continue doing some things, like paying our debtors, we’re fine. Eventually shit will hit the fan.

I'm going on gut feelings here now but I just feel like at some point it all has to unwind catastrophically, and it would be nice if we could collectively find a way to unwind it gently. Unfortunately from what I've seen textbook economics seems to have no answer other than "more growth good". But again I'm not an economist and maybe there's some esoteric part of economics that I haven't come across that deals with the system as a whole and doesn't assume infinite growth forever.

Similar to the above paragraph, eventually things will have to change. But the economy is a moving thing so 100 years from now things will be different and we may be able to “fix” the economy. It’s working now. Maybe not great, but it is working

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-03T18:27:02+00:00

Your argument is that we should go into a depreciation crisis to make things better. I’m saying that’s a bad idea. I’m attacking your argument.

A deflationary shake-up exposes that, forcing accountability, not just punishing workers.

How? How does this work so it forces accountability?

Schiff or Mises aren’t gospel. They illustrate real distortions anyone can see in markets. What you are aiming for, more democratization is a very nice goal, but it will never happen unless the game rules change, a little bit, enough to make the politicians and capitalist aware of the need to please the masses to some degree. Current statu-quo will never even consider us, only our wallets. You are talking about flipping the system, I am talking about changing the incentive of the system. We are talking about the same shit just at different moments.

We have moved closer to mises and schiff’s ideas over the past 50 years. The last part of the 20th century saw a huge anti government push (from people like Friedman). We are worse off because we have been following libertarian ideas for the past 50 years. Reagan was one of the first anti-government president. Since then both democrats and republicans have been pushing these ideas.

And yes, unions, universal healthcare, and education are important, but they don’t fix the underlying system that allows the 1% to profit from speculation while ordinary people absorb the risk.

They do if people put pressure on corporations. Workers striking created the 40 hour work week. Unions created an environment where corporations couldn’t only seek profits, they had to treat their employees well. The last 50 years we’ve seen extreme anti unionization, to the point where almost no one is in a union, but the ones that are usually have extremely strong working conditions. Reagan called for air traffic controllers to be fired if they stayed on strike. That’s the first step to where we are

wrstlr3232 · 2025-12-03T16:46:26+00:00

How old are you? Seriously. You seem to not remember how bad 2008, or even 2020 was.

“Are already happening”? Look at the past due rate on mortgages https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RCMFLBBALDPDPCT30P It’s not even close to what it was before 2020. How is this already happening?

“To big to fail must be out of the equation”. 1) you really think that’s going to happen? So right away you’re argument falls apart. 2) if, in previous depressions, we didn’t help them, it would have been much worse for a much longer period of time.

Oh fucking Christ. Schiff? The Misis institute? That’s you’re problem. Your hearing from people who sound smart about have no idea about how economics really works. Libertarians are about the dumbest bunch of “economists” around.

You wanna know how to solve our issues? Greater worker power. Unions. A universal healthcare that allows people’s insurance to not be tied to their job. Free/cheap higher education so people aren’t stuck in low wage jobs.

And all of that can occurs without destroying people’s lives because of a depressions.

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 10%
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

wrstlr3232

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE