I was reading an old blog I made about GG and back then I believed it was radical online feminists basically doing this.
So have the TRA's gobbled them up in the meantime and become more powerful? They're somehow far more insufferable.
Dictators often have a lot of governance experience and tend to be very wise. In democracies, a leader might last 4-12 years max, but dictators don't have silly "voters" to deal with, so they tend to have a lot more understanding and experience than a newer president.
Game crashed yesterday my wife lost her 200+ hour save file because I guess the game doesnt make backups. Ooops.
These guys are rank amateurs. This reminds me of ARK, another total shit game, uses base unreal assets, everything 100% flipped, development garbage, crashes, bugs, havent been fixed for years - but still hella fun.
Palworld is an absolute shit game, made like shit by asset-flippers, short-cutters and thieves. It's bug-ridden, poorly designed, badly optimized, crashes, breaks and has known problems that make parts of the game completely unusable.
But it's hella fun, and honestly, it's all that matters.
I'm speaking mainly to the fact that corporations will want the cheapest labor possible. The way to get that is increase the labor supply.
It's a better idea to buy labour abroad. The US was the first to do that efficiently, then the labour in the country specialized in finance and technology. They're still the richest country in the world. Buying labour from others isn't "outsourcing jobs", it actually helps countries you buy the labour from, and it helps you becuase of comparative advantage.
Immigration is different, but similar, all it does is grow the labour force in your own country. It is important not to let immigrants create cultural enclaves in the country - Canada is learning that lesson hardcore.
Well it's true, but the purpose of government is to ensure a fair playing field. While buying up assets might seem nefarious - under a well maintained libertarian system - any business that doesn't work to compete to provide goods and services will fail.
What he will find happens, if he is successful at what he does, is that a lot of businesses won't do business there, because their success hinges on getting sweet deals with the government.
Why was Amazon successful? The government exempts all its tax as a US-headquartered company. Why was AT&T successful? The government literally signed a contract mandating it as a monopoly. Why was any crown or state-owned enterprise successful? Because they get the government to regulate their competition away.
He will discover that the worlds biggest players can't succeed there, if he does his job correctly, and none of them will want to play ball. They'll send their lobbyists to fight for sweet deals and tax breaks - and when they get none, they'll simply go to a country that does give them one.
Nowadays, the biggest world players are all cheating - the most successful ones are the ones who are best at it.
Came to a realization today. All the countries adopting EV's at record rates are doing so with government subsidy. EV adherents, needing to justify their expensive toy, promise along side manufacturers that "the technology will get better".
Tell me, when the government mandates something, where is the incentive to improve it? Why would any company want to improve their product when the government is literally telling you that the purchase of that product is mandatory.
To get more customers? Why, they won. They got all the customers, they got the government to make it illegal NOT to buy your product.
So you do what AT&T did, you sit on your ass and count your money and make zero improvements to your product. That's what you do.
The nine-to-five, in particular, was first implemented and popularized by Henry Ford, who used a philosophy of enriching their workers to both solidify his talent and create a customer who could purchase their products as well.
Henry Ford fucking hated unions, and it's savage that union pinkos nowadays simply use unionization as sheepskin to cover "seizing the means of production", and take credit for every good thing that ever happened to working men.
Individual communists don't want to kill you, they just want your stuff and they want government power to take your stuff. That is just petty thievery because they don't even have the balls to take your stuff themselves.
Many individual communists then decide that killing you for your stuff is acceptable - but only if they have institutional power.
Yeah patents need to be obliterated - inventors of products have the first mover advantage on a product which is easily incentive enough to invent something. You don't need to give them a 20-year heat start - a smart inventor with a good product can make a ton of money without a patent.
Could someone steal the design and compete? Sure, but it would take them years to do so because you would have the design and already be producing the product and agile enough to respond far before a competitor could defeat you. And if they are able to defeat you, it's because you were unable to maintain market viability.
Patents are functionally just tools used to beat other inventors with the club of the law to try to get government-mandated monopolies.
They're going to discover what Japanese cartoonists did, and that when people are free to copy and distribute your characters, you get more famous and popular and make more money.
But hey, for some reason Disney believes otherwise so, I mean, it's not illegal to be wrong.
Things have value, and demanding that others give you things of value simply because they are part of society is a violation of their rights.
Combine this with the communists' theory of labour, and you can prove that communism is just a rewording of the re-institution of slavery, after all, you don't deserve what you produce, we do.
These people are slavery advocates, just so long as they are the beneficiaries. Why don't they understand that communism doesn't work?
Because they don't work either.
Say what you want about Musk, but so many people call him an idiot, and that, he certainly is not. Is he eccentric, a womanizer, a rather terrible father, a con man, and weak to the succeptible wiles of fame - yes.
Stupid? No. This man cleverly attached himself to various tech waves that were ahead of the curve and became the richest man in the world because of it. He caught the "government subsidy for electric car" wave and did it far better than Solyndra did, and got stupidly rich off a company that doesn't even make profit. The man is smart, and he knows how to milk an entire country, even world. Buying a media outlet is just part of his PR plan to stay on top.
I mean, he's a terrible person, but most dumb libshits constantly harp on how stupid he is, which is the stupidest criticism you can levy against him when there are so many better criticisms out there.
This is why public sector unions need to be abolished.
These vampire agencies suck money out of the public employees, very rarely are able to actually protect their wages, and in the end, only want to take more taxpayer money.
Then these vampire agencies decide to back political candidates! Like, bitch, you literally work for the people! You should strive for political neutrality!