gentaro

I very much doubt the Trump administrations cares about Uighur Muslims any more than the CCP. Also funny how they need to wait until Trump's last day in office before lobbying any real criticism.

This conversation really isn't productive.

> The difference is how likely you are to assume possible racism is actual racism. The "glass half full/empty" metaphor expresses that difference quite well.

I addressed this quite clearly:

If you're not generally at risk of experiencing racism (ie. you are of the majority ethnic group), of course it is easy to rule out. It's hardly a glass half empty/half full type of problem.

A glass half empty/half full metaphor implies that the perception is simply down to personal optimism, which as I said, is clearly a gross oversimplification.

Terrible oversimplification. It's extremely difficult to determine what negative action is motivated by racism and which isn't.

If you're not generally at risk of experiencing racism (ie. you are of the majority ethnic group), of course it is easy to rule out. It's hardly a glass half empty/half full type of problem.

and the supplier is bankrupt.

> Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality.

And yet, you have no counterargument.

> No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted.

Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this:

- Jobs are a function of demand.

- Demand is driven by consumers.

- Consumers need capital to drive demand

- The poor spend proportionately to their income much more than the wealthy.

That's the circle you need to be thinking about when you're asking yourself what the impact will be on jobs. The more you drive down living standards of the poor and middle class, the fewer jobs you will have, not the other way around.

> No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed.

Those jobs don't disappear just because you mandate a living wage.

The point that you're ignoring is that most people working these "entry-level" jobs in fact DO depend on them to cover their living expenses.

What you're suggesting is to set those people in a race to the bottom along with the high school kid and retiree looking for "a little extra money". The point of setting a living wage is to set a bare minimum standard for employment.

You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies, but you'd have to do research instead of just complaining.

He has to attack the person because opposing the idea of people making a living wage makes you look like a callous idiot.

"The free market will fix it!" - If we're assuming invoking the Defence Production Act wouldn't work because the machines are too complex to prepare in time, why on earth do you believe the free market would succeed?

Sounds like maybe you should take the hint. It's not "taking sides" to point out that you're glorifying violence if you as the president are threatening to deploy military force against protestors.

They make sense if there's a big apple logo on the front.

You're underestimating the influence CMC has over the space.

They determine what exchange volume is legit and what isn't, also what coins are worthy of being listed. At the least, this gives Binance additional stability, at the most, they can really consolidate trading volume at their exchange and for Binance approved coins.

Good to know.