I don’t understand that point of view? Why would they pay their CEOs less than any other company? If they did, then they would either not be able to hire CEOs, have the shittiest CEOs or have CEOs that wouldn’t give a crap. People don’t live on welfare, especially highly connected, highly educated people like CEOs.

Oh… believe me, me too.

Well… Actually, they are. They were poor money lenders, and gave money to the neighbourhood junkie, expecting he would not buy crack. It is Argentina’s fault to be in the position it is, but it’s also the money lenders’ to enable it.

You, this was already happening and bound to happen with or without Milei. The difference is that, while Milei’s approach is to deregulate the economy, Kirchnerism/Peronism’s way was to hide the head underground and pretend it never happened.

At least now there’s a plan to do it.

I mean, I love ska. But a whole eternity of it? It’s just way too much.

Now you’d technically be a professional runner.

Goddamn, this is fucking wholesome.

I do expect that. I expect teachers to be very well compensated. You are talking about educating future generations and the sustainability of the country. Not about selling microwaves (nothing against it, it’s just that I consider teachers to be as important to society as firefighters and healthcare workers).

Great discussion and arguments, mate. Top level. e/π levei.

You’ve got to understand that politics are never so straightforward. Bolsonaro’s premise might have been one, but the execution might have been another.

So has come to pass with many presidents in Argentina, promising to solve the issues, and making them worse.

Not everyone might like Milei, but the truth is that he was the lesser evil, and by a long margin.

AFAIR, Thatcher wasn’t half bad. I mean, she was elected three times.

As an Argentinian living abroad and having left the country for how unbearable it was, I can tell you it’s true. I’m not saying some of those things aren’t important, but Argentina’s Government is like a crackhead. You give it some money and expenditure capabilities, and the next thing you know is at the shadiest dealer, buying as much of the worst stuff.

You need to cut the vicious cycle somewhere. Unfortunately for Argentina, that place is Welfare State.

Wait, are you telling me I shouldn’t keep throwing these anvils to that damned roadrunner? Because I frigging despise him.

It could work surprisingly well at some extent. I mean, Spaniards are hard labouring people and they put hours to work. But they also like to live the life (you know, paella, siesta and stuff). So the first couple of times it may come to pass, but things may hit the fan really quickly.

Also, cheap labour force and laws very favourable for the employer.

You know, most countries that have strike laws forbid this. In Spain, for instance, if the workers are on a strike, the company is forbidden to replace those positions in a strike. Neither with temporary, nor people from other places. And the company cannot fire them. Basically it’s a shackle, either you solve your strike or you are out of business.

I know my sources are kinda lame, but I trust them. First, is this video from Kurzgesast that comments on if, how and why nuclear energy is a good strategy for long term improvement on greenhouse emissions and energy sourcing. Second, there’s this other video from nuclear physicist Elina Charatsidou.

Again, not papers, but words from reputable people that I imagine have read enough. I know, as hominen fallacy and all that. But there’s a point where I don’t have the time to read papers about EVERY interesting topic.

And even then, although there’s a finite amount of Uranium on Earth, the amount there is could last us thousands of years. Enough for us to get a replacement, like fusion, working.

Yes, by Argentinian standards. That is not much, taking into account the left bias that Argentinian politics have at the moment. By most standards, Juntos por el Cambio are a social-democrat solution. That is pretty much left in most countries.

- Yes dad! I’m a sissy removed, and I like to watch man like me getting steamrolled by big black hunks!

- I came to ask you if you wanted a slice of pizza… but okay.

See? That’s where I get confused and I end up with the “that can’t happen” attitude in my head.

If you abolish private property, then who has that property? Someone will always have some of that, at least. Let’s imagine that it’s seized, by whom? How? And why wouldn’t that be thievery in the eyes of those who don’t want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don’t it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a “haver” against all of those “havenotters” that gave their property for nothing but good will.

And then there’s the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of “property”? And then it’s the issue of how do you measure that “property”? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It’s not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.

Finally, who does that? We? And who is “we”? Who organises “we”? How is “we” not anarchist? And if it’s anarchist, how do we ensure it’s just?