Yes the same applies to onions

It is possible to respect opinions without valuing them

https://news.uk.cityam.com/story/2344055/content.html The enshitification of everything continues at pace

Gm, the more you read the more you question, the more you realise . Read more

Gm, when a government tells you they need to increase taxes to cover a shortfall or a supposed black hole in the country’s finances. It’s important to ask why and how the shortfall happened and not to just accept the blame of the previous administration, it’s all the same administration , it’s the same civil service and the same government at the end of the day

As a British person, I would just like to inform our New York friends, in that London elected a Muslim with socialist/communist ideals and it hasn’t gone particularly well for us. Despite the constant media washing

Gm , my quiet reflection today, revolves around how do New Yorkers think they would be able to fix the problems from socialism with communism?

Guy obviously never heard of the many fallacies of economics

I use https://laptopwithlinux.com/

Governments never lend or give anything to business that it does not take away from business.

The broken window fallacy is an economic concept that criticizes the idea that destroying property or causing economic damage can stimulate economic growth. The fallacy is often attributed to the 19th-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat, who used the example of a broken window to illustrate this point. Here's a simple breakdown: 1. **The Scenario**: Imagine a shopkeeper's window is broken. The shopkeeper will have to spend money to replace it. This spending might seem like a benefit to the economy because it creates work for a glazier (window repair person) and generates income for the glazier. 2. **The Fallacy**: The fallacy lies in assuming that this breakage is a net gain for the economy. In reality, the shopkeeper has lost money that could have been spent on other goods or services. The money spent on repairing the window is not new money injected into the economy; it is money that would have been spent elsewhere. 3. **Opportunity Cost**: The true cost of the broken window includes the opportunity cost—the other things the shopkeeper could have bought with that money. By focusing only on the visible benefits (the glazier's gain), one ignores the hidden costs (the shopkeeper's lost opportunities). 4. **Application**: This fallacy is often applied to larger economic policies, such as public works projects or war spending, where it is argued that destroying infrastructure or engaging in conflict can stimulate economic activity. Critics argue that while such activities may create short-term jobs and spending, they do not represent a net gain for the economy and can divert resources from more productive uses. In summary, the broken window fallacy highlights the importance of considering both the visible and hidden costs when evaluating the economic impact of destruction or spending.