🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@admitsWrongIfProven

> Lots of poor people pose one clear problem for the economy: no money is spent, no process of actually creating value takes place.

This is a prime example of where your misunderstanding of economics comes in.. you think of money as just pieces of paper... Its not that poor people cant spend money, its that they cant generate wealth. they are too hungry and beat down to contribute to the wealth generation of society

> Take some of the billions just lying there and invest in manufacturing the stuff we (humans) actually need. Not talking about taxing some middle class people that can hardly afford a nice house.

Again back to your fundemental failing, redistributing money destroys wealth, we want people who **create** wealth, not destroy it. We wont those people to get out of poverty by generating enough wealth, simply giving them money doesnt do that.

There is a reason why every time we tried that in history it resulted in massive deaths and starvation.

> As far as i am informed, taxes for the actually rich (not middle class or just barely millionaire) are at an all time low. Why keep that up? If you'd say the rich will build eco friendly tech, you have already been proven wrong.

No the all time low was zero, we used to not have federal income tax at all, or business tax. So it is quite far from an "all time low"

> Lots of economic growth since money is spent, ecological improvement if scientists are in charge of what to build. Don't see why that would harm anyone, only good outcomes.

Because we have overwhelming historical evidence that isnt how it plays out, ever.

@admitsWrongIfProven Why do both when one benefits everyone and america and the other harms people with no advantage.

It is no coincidence that as those in poverty go down the number of rich people go up... oppertunity and equality works at every class level. When you create the means for people to get out of poverty you also create the means for billionairs to be created, and you need both to have a healthy society.

@internic

Thanks, I did earlier: https://qoto.org/@freemo/111467142454838130

@rwg

@wjmaggos I am all for making sure money isnt able to influence political power... but going about that by taking away people with money is a really self-destructive tactic.

I hate to break it to you but the whole "tax the rich" thing is what the rich want you debating... why? Cause you can tax them all you want, but when our budget is 60% military they will still get rich and we will go in debt no matter how much you tax them.

Ya know what the rich really dont want? You fighting to get the military budget slashed in half leaving more than enough money to cut taxes for everyone (including the rich)... but noooo, any solution that saves everyone money, including the rich, is one that will never be supported.

So many people just get spoon fed a narrative and then its law.

@freepeoplesfreepress

> Dear Dr. Freemo: I am starting to comprehend and understand the lucidity of your written statements before me.This seems so abstract, this seems to be the abstract study of propositions and statements, to me, this seems to be more of a mathematical operational model

Yes it is a bit abstract... in fact the formal term as you hint at is "prepositional logic"... and in fact specifically "First order prepositional logic". Its very similar to logic in computer programs... it doesnt care if they conclusion is true, only that it satisfies the rules :)

Math is little more than formalized logic so yea it is a mathematical model, but as with much of math this was bore out from philosophy... In philosophy it deals closely with the idea of Ontologies, which has also been formalized in math (ontologies are the vocabulary we use to describe prepositional logic).

> So if I am correct, we are drawing inferences from relationships, which allows us to make assumptions, I would think that our own biases could contaminate and alter the results in seeking the truth.

In formal logic biases can not pollute the system in how you reason about it but may pollute the system in terms of the axioms you bring (which is outside the logic itself and harps back to my point)... Let me give an example.

Only animals have horns.(axiom)

All unicorns have horns. (axiom)

All things with horns can stab you in the face. (axiom)

Therefore all unicorns are animals and can stab you in the face. (inference, an act of making the implicit explicit)

This is perfectly valid logic, even though unicorns dont actually exist the logic above is valid. It in no way deals with truth and only deals with extracting the implicit out of the explicit.

@bluGill

That too yes, the wealth of everyone is much higher as time goes on no matter how you measure it really

@Amikke

@sharonecathcart "If we just stole more money from citizens we wouldnt be in debt" is **not** a valid explanation of debt... It is spending, and while not cutting taxes would result in less debt, even then the debt would have been significant. So no matter how you cut it this take is wrong.

@rwg

We pay $750 to $1000 per month but please keep in mind this is for servers that host many services for #QOTO beyond just mastodon.

@heinragas

Were you born int he netherlands? For better or worse this isnt the sort of attitude I expect or expiernce from the Dutch I know. This feels more like a reaction an american or a brit would have than a Dutch person, who is usually less polarized.

@Rado1 Of course its not linear... I've done tons of research on population growth.. The problem is the non-linearity occurs due to starvation and competition for resources or otherwise making the world hard to survive in reducing the number of kids someone wants to have.

Non linear is the problem, its nonlinearity is directly where the suffering and starving occurs.

@em Hope you have a clucking good time!

@Amikke You make an excellent point :)

Them: Because of capitalism cars are expensive, 200 years ago a everyone could afford a mode of transport.

Me: Well yea, but your paying extra because now it cant get diarrhea or kick you in the face.

Just some random #Math porn .... yummmy

@freepeoplesfreepress We are talking formal logic here so there are some very specific things to keep in mind.

Formal logic deals with axioms, and logical operations on them. So while it can bring implicit information from the axioms out as explicit information logic itself can not define the axioms nor can it determine the truthfulness of those axioms.

Therein lies the crux, it can only tell you the relationship between some assumptions and what it might tell you about other things it doesnt directly state. But it relies on assumptions.