It all depends who you ask. There are no fixed definitions, not globally. That's why policies are important points for grounding.
Can he experiment on his own family and friends first? Please?
Well yeah. Same as many US schools. Standard.
Remember that when the news article talks about the economy, it's mostly talking about rich people's yachts.
Obviously there are some people nearing retirement age who need their pension plans not to lose value rapidly, they do exist. But the vast majority of the money that is being discussed here, that a bubble might make or break, is millionaires and billionaires savings accounts... So when this bubble bursts and when these companies go bankrupt, to hell with the ultra rich. If we want to help out people who are struggling to live out their retirement because of the stock market collapse that will occur, let's do that, and let's just tell the billionaires to go to hell.
Most of the people that you hear described as radical leftists are actually not radical leftists, which means most of those conflicts are coming from somewhere else, and they're a distraction from the potential goodness of serious radical leftist policy proposals.
Obviously there's a lot more that can be said on the topic, but what we typically see with those buzzwords is pure distraction, 100% spam, totally intentional deflection from what should be serious discussions.
Again, you're stereotyping. You can't imagine that in a country with 300 million people there are lots of viewpoints, many of which take five seconds to find on the Internet, if only you cared. Keep going, though.
Discouraged by whom? Bad passive voice.
It's all relative. Is your manager trying to get you a raise? Or, are they getting a bonus by denying you one? If you aren't sure, maybe it's the latter.
Right. Those people we need to beware of, those are the bosses. That's why we talk, that's why we unionize.
They're lying. They won't go. They're so rich that they don't have to worry about this kinda money. That's the whole point of being rich, after all.
Because looking to blame one single group is a fool's mission. It conceals all of the shady shit that goes on.
If it's the voters' fault, then Harris's pro genocide stance was legit.
If it's the voters' fault, then gerrymandering doesn't exist.
If it's the voters' fault, then congressional insider trading doesn't hurt anyone.
If it's the voters' fault then who cares that Obama passed the ACA instead of national healthcare?
If it's the voters' fault, then monopolies don't exist. Neither do dirty cops and courts that disenfranchise minorities.
Look. I'm being lazy. I could have said non-voters instead. Or both voters and non-voters. Regardless, systemic problems demand systemic solutions. Your desire to blame individuals ignores that basic principle.
Of course the people still need to be responsible for taking action. But you don't get to blame them for things they didn't do, that they didn't control.
... Or perhaps you're suggesting more vigilante action? That's one approach. Is that what you want? We could discuss it.
That's basically a dishonest question. Some elements of environmentalism are explicitly about financial stability... Solar panels on your house give the electric company less ability to gouge you for power, right? ... But some things are medium run concerns or societal issues. You can't pretend these are what they aren't... Well, you can, but you'll lose your base.