So you are telling poor people how they should live their lives after all. The core point I made that set this whole thing off. It turns out this whole thing actually is an excuse to decide how poor people should live. Thank you for proving my point for me.
> So one guy (who wasn't an economist BTW) who died over 20 years ago and whose ideas have been long abandoned is your big example?
Are you kidding about being abandoned? Reaganomics has not been abandoned, it has been enshrined as the idol of American capitalism. Almost every element of the ongoing and ever-accelerating enrichening of the rich and the disenfranchisement of the disenfranchised can be traced to ideas put in place during the Reagan administration. And the guy who invents "supply side economics" and the economic policy of the United States for the next 50 decades is an economist, regardless of what his piece of paper says. There are plenty of Chairmen of the Fed that you could look at under a similar light, and they are mostly "official" economists.
I'm not telling anyone how they should live their lives. I'm explaining why the person in your example is making an objectively dumb decision, though it's one I think they should be allowed to make.
Your point only exists in your mind, where you are obsessed with "the rich" telling "the poor" what to do no matter what is actually being discussed.
> Are you kidding about being abandoned? Reaganomics has not been abandoned, it has been enshrined as the idol of American capitalism. Almost every element of the ongoing and ever-accelerating enrichening of the rich and the disenfranchisement of the disenfranchised can be traced to ideas put in place during the Reagan administration. And the guy who invents "supply side economics" and the economic policy of the United States for the next 50 decades is an economist, regardless of what his piece of paper says. There are plenty of Chairmen of the Fed that you could look at under a similar light, and they are mostly "official" economists.
I know it's cool in progressive circles to blame every problem in modern society on Reagan, but the MAGA crowd doesn't care about supply side economics so no one is advocating for it any longer.
And no, the guy was not an economist. He had no training as one nor ever acted as one in a professional capacity. He worked in finance and as an executive in industry and government.
Even more important, the kids of today won’t care. Their internet will be fully slopped.
And with outdoor places getting more and more rare/expensive, they’ll have no choice but to consume slop.
What does this mean? Cities and other places where real estate is expensive still have public parks, and outdoor places are not getting more expensive elsewhere.
They also have numerous other choices other than "consume whatever is on the internet" and "go outside".
I don't think anyone benefits from poorly automated content creation, but I'm not this resigned to its impact on society.