21–30 of 48 posts
I'm not a fan of the "chaos agent" style of politics, but sometimes it does bring up topics that would be taboo to talk about otherwise.
Chat, is it good actually to let the gulf coast degrade into a third-world shithole?
> Florida, Louisiana and Texas residents have received the lion's share of FEMA direct assistance since 2015, per newly gathered data. https://www.axios.com/2024/10/08/fema-direct-payments-state-...
Would be slightly more informative as per-capita numbers since Texas and Florida are #2 and #3 most populous states.
California is the world's fifth largest economy. They will be fine.
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/02/texas-environment-cl...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252012825/florida-gov-desant...
[3] https://www.axios.com/2023/09/27/insurance-rates-climate-cha...
[4] https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functio...
[5] https://www.newsweek.com/map-reveals-scale-florida-property-...
> Florida, Louisiana and Texas residents have received the lion's share of FEMA direct assistance since 2015, per newly gathered data. https://www.axios.com/2024/10/08/fema-direct-payments-state-...
Would be slightly more informative as per-capita numbers since Texas and Florida are #2 and #3 most populous states.
If $X is exported from residents of my state out to support another state, that's the same local impact regardless of how populous the destination is or how finely that $X gets split after it arrives.
In any case, I think it's enough to support the idea that there's a tension (if not contradiction) where the states that receive the most absolute benefit are also the ones electing politicians who pretend the exact opposite.
Awesome! If California residents weren't paying for all the hurricanes in the deep red South and tornadoes in the deep red plains states, then they'd have plenty of money to take care of themselves. Does this guy ever think through anything before opening his mouth? Is he even capable of thinking?
I'm not taking a political stance here, because that's not the purpose of this forum. But from an efficiency perspective, I believe the question is whether a federal "agency" (and its associated bureaucracy) is necessary to deal with local emergencies, not whether federal "financial aid" may be necessary to help support state and local governments. Most if not all states have their own emergency management programs.
Stronger apart, economy of small scale. These aren't the phrases.
Awesome! If California residents weren't paying for all the hurricanes in the deep red South and tornadoes in the deep red plains states, then they'd have plenty of money to take care of themselves. Does this guy ever think through anything before opening his mouth? Is he even capable of thinking?
> Does this guy ever think through anything before opening his mouth? Is he even capable of thinking? None of this behavior is new; the American people have been fully aware of this and a voting majority decided that he was the most qualified person for the job.
There's your mistake: the technocratic assumption that elections are job interviews selecting for the "most qualified" candidate.
That's one part, but not the only part. This thought experiment should make it clear: You're voting in an important election. One candidate is an incompetent and unqualified clown, the other is a highly competent and qualified Nazi. You hate Nazis. Who do you vote for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does this guy ever think through anything before opening his mouth? Is he even capable of thinking? None of this behavior is new; the American people have been fully aware of this and a voting majority decided that he was the most qualified person for the job.
> a voting majority decided that he was the most qualified person for the job. There's your mistake: the technocratic assumption that elections are job interviews selecting for the "most qualified" candidate. That's one part, but not the only part. This thought experiment should make it clear: You're voting in an important election. One candidate is an incompetent and unqualified clown, the other is a highly competen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does this guy ever think through anything before opening his mouth? Is he even capable of thinking? None of this behavior is new; the American people have been fully aware of this and a voting majority decided that he was the most qualified person for the job.
> a voting majority decided that he was the most qualified person for the job. There's your mistake: the technocratic assumption that elections are job interviews selecting for the "most qualified" candidate. That's one part, but not the only part. This thought experiment should make it clear: You're voting in an important election. One candidate is an incompetent and unqualified clown, the other is a highly competen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a voting majority decided that he was the most qualified person for the job. There's your mistake: the technocratic assumption that elections are job interviews selecting for the "most qualified" candidate. That's one part, but not the only part. This thought experiment should make it clear: You're voting in an important election. One candidate is an incompetent and unqualified clown, the other is a highly competen…
If you're arguing that voters choose a person who is less qualified, can you explain how Harris is a Nazi?
Why? Harris isn't a Nazi. The hypothetical was exaggerated to emphasize a specific point. Don't take it too literally or try to map it directly to current events.