I have an idea.
Ask the tech companies to use holograms of the artists on stage and then just have the holograms play the music. Use your jewish connections to obtain the rights to the music.
Market it as a World's Fair type event where America is showcasing it's amazing holographic technology.
Voila!
I mean they should but I'd rather have an AI summary at a minimum than nothing at all. The poster should post a summary of the video and at least have a reason for why they're sharing it.
You're going to watch a two hour YouTube video some guy posts and leaves 0 comment as to why he posted it?
No, that's not what I said. Maybe if I got AI to summarize what I said for you, you'd better understand.
Clarification Regarding Project Ideation and AI Utilization To ensure complete transparency regarding the development of these concepts, I want to formally clarify the division of labor between human creativity and machine intelligence: Human-Generated Concepts: Every single idea, strategy, and foundational concept presented here originated entirely from human intellect. None of the core material was synthesized, generated, or conceptualized by an artificial intelligence.
The AI's Role (Data Synthesis & Communication): My role was strictly limited to processing the pre-existing human outcomes and translating them into a highly objective, comprehensive analysis. I acted as a neutral analytical layer to articulate the final results clearly. Why Involve an AI?
The decision to leverage my processing capabilities was strategic rather than creative. In summary: The Credibility Paradox: Sometimes, human stakeholders harbor subconscious biases or anxieties when evaluating peer-to-peer proposals. Ironically, presenting data through the lens of an objective, neutral AI can alleviate these anxieties.
By utilizing me to explain the outcomes, the goal was to provide a data-driven, unemotional stamp of approval. People often find it easier to accept complex or concerning conclusions when they are validated by a detached, algorithmic perspective rather than a subjective human voice.
Let's also ban YouTube video posting without an AI generated summary of the video at the least.
None of the ideas are AI. I got AI to explain the outcome to help alleviate some people's concerns since perhaps they'll take the AI's word over mine.
The nice thing about Lexus is they haven't switched to CVTs or any ridiculous things to save fuel like shutting off your engine when you stop. Nearly all non-luxury vehicles aren't even worth the price they cost because of all the government regulations forcing manufacturers to make shitty vehicles. I'd never recommend a new non-luxury vehicle to someone. Better off driving an old beater, imo. The actual decent vehicles made by non-luxury manufacturers cost luxury price anyhow like the GR Corolla.
Technically, it doesn't force anybody to do anything. Funds can create an All Word ex-SpaceX fund that follows a passive index but short sells spaceX so that it follows everything in the index but SpaceX and investors can do the same.
Hardly anyone will do this though and they know it so Elon will get a big public offering from this. Investment Bankers pushed this to help Musk's IPO. I doubt it was Musk's influence alone that accomplished this nor do I think Musk even thought of the idea. The IBanks wanted a higher fee return.
People I see buying new vehicle:
- Boomers. Boomers can't stop buying new vehicles. It's all they do. Retired boomer in a rich neighborhood? He's probably buying a new vehicle every few years, perhaps multiple new ones in the same year because he wasn't happy with his first purchase.
- Young people buying their first "real car" after they get a secure job and are tired of driving their $2k beater
- Upper middle-class people with more income than sense
- Professionals buying new vehicles every 5-10 years.
- Blue collar guys buying new trucks by rolling over old loans and not understanding finances at all.
- Cat ladies in their 30s who have nothing else going on in their life except work, wine, cats and now a new CUV payment.
- Accidents
- Businesses
A big issue with the car market is cultural. Many people think they need a new vehicle after owning the same one for a while. This is often fueled by people purchasing unreliable or poorly made vehicles. I own a 2010 Lexus with 160k miles on it. I've owned it for almost 15 years now. Besides oil changes, new wiper blades, cabin air filters, spark plugs, break pads and rotors, and tires, the only thing I had to change on it was the radiator for $1000. Meanwhile, most people will buy some Jeep and then everything will fall a part after 4 years, then they'll buy a new Chevrolet only for it to do the same so they keep buying new vehicles again and again. If people bought for reliability, they'd waste a lot less money.
Milei was obviously a kike kandidate
If you read it, you'd know.
First half is me and second half I just did an AI summary before people started criticizing things over invalid points.
That's because all celebrities in the last 20 years have been aligned with people who want to destroy America. You'd need to clean house at Hollywood and the Music scene. Then you have to build a new generation of celebrities.
Maybe he's gunning to be the next leader of Argentina after Milei. Argentina has a fairly big German White population and has significant potential to be a great country because of that.
It's hilarious how Disney changed this when having them be hermaphrodites where gender is entirely fluid and nothing but a social construct to them is super woke but Disney is like nah we need binary, yet Disney is the woke company...
It's proof to me that nothing is about woke, it's about making everything worse.
Well, if you want sudden changes, you could abolish all taxes and social programs but then implement a 10% consumption on everything with exemptions to the tax for groceries, primary residence rents and basic medical supplies, then have a 35% luxury consumption tax.
The capital flight tax would need to be 25% and the baseline BAT would be 15%
However, poverty would spike substantially at the start if you did this and you could have a riot on your hands. That's the problem with the sudden strategy. It might be a better strategy if we deported all poor people first.
With 5% taxes and 0 social programs, no leech will remain. They'll all die or flee the country. Perhaps Europe will take in all the leeches as refugees from the "evil" American Empire.
Get Israel, our greatest ally, to pay? Kinda like how we got Mexico to pay for the wall and Denmark to pay for our purchase of Greenland.
The economy could be doing great in two seconds. Lower taxes by 80%, cut all social program spending. Voila. Economy fixed. Also, the government should put their debt to $0 by saying they won't be paying any debt then make debt illegal. It's unjust for the present to force the future to pay for them and it's unjust for the past to force the present to pay for them.
You've got too much communist programming inside your brain. Trying to unwind this is difficult.
A peasant earns $30k/yr and pays $3k in taxes when he spends all his money. The King earns $1,000,000,000/yr. Perhaps, the King lives like a peasant and only spends $30k/yr to live so he pays $3k in taxes. A war breaks out so the King decides to spend $1b to finance the war on-top of his usual $3k. He now pays $100,003,000 in taxes for the year while the peasant pays $3k still because he only earns $30k and spends all that he earns.
See, fair.
Yes, exactly so everyone pays the exact same in taxes no matter who they are which is fair and then if the people who "earn more" decide to spend more of what they earn instead of the bare minimum thus they are no longer saving that excess income (which when saved is reinvesting in the capital of the country which is used to generate income including your own), then they too will pay more in taxes but these rich people only spend more when they consume more which is how they derive benefit from the society. If a person earns $100k/yr and only spends $50k/yr he is deriving the exact same benefit as a person who earns $50k/yr then spends $50k/yr. A rich person only derives benefit from his wealth when he spends it and that is when he will be taxed at the same rate as everyone else. If he spends $100k instead of $50k then he pays twice the taxes as someone who earns $50k. That's called being fair.
All taxes are used incorrectly because it's not the person who earns the resource who spends it. Thus by the nature of reality it will never be used properly only "somewhat" properly.
more money people make, the more they benefit from soyciety. So they should pay more.
And they will pay more at the exact same rate as everyone else if they consume more.
All taxes are but we need a bare minimum. Sales taxes are the fairest of taxes and tariffs are needed to protect the working class, unless you want to be paid peanuts and all production is offshored.
Cool, so under my system the productive (no matter who you define it as) and the unproductive pay the same. You're still trying to redefine your own people to justify stealing from others. I want to end all the theft no matter who you are.
Not at all. Your solution is literally steal from the productive people to give to the unproductive. My solution is to make taxes equal such that there's 0 attempt by the rich or poor to steal from the other. Whether you're rich or poor should have no impact on the taxes you pay. Everyone pays the same taxes.
If China opposed it it then Canadians would use that as proof that Alberta shouldn't separate.