Hardkill

I think the wrong kind of charity are lavish gifts from the government including major tax cuts for the rich and corporations, deregulation of big businesses or of any part of the financial system, excessive amounts of government contracts for big defense contracting companies, PACs/SuperPACs, all kinds of tax loopholes for all corporations, excessive allowance for forming too many monopolies, allowing big businesses to crush the working class and unions, allowing Big Pharma and private health insurance companies to rip off and suck the life out of consumers, etc.

Consider yourself lucky, OP. It's now $6.12 a gallon here in the land of Reagan (State of CA), especially in LA County and the OC. Trump and the Israeli lobby really did it this time! Oh, believe me, and my parents, when we say that this is something that we've thought about for many years now. Our country really has too many greedy people, too many stupid people, and way too many people brainwashed by the brain-rotting content from the right-wing media, TikTok, and all kinds of slopulism online and the rest of social media. My parents, who were born in the 1940s, have said that Trump is by far the worst president our country has ever had. They've always been much smarter, much more well-educated, significantly more well-read, definitely more informed about the news and politics than most Americans. My dad's older brother, who is a lawyer and really follows politics, is truly dismayed and disgusted by Trumpism. So, that is really telling you how upsetting it has been for my family and for me.

Are you a conservative or a Republican?

Viktor Orban is no longer the PM of Hungary. Peter Magyar just got inaugurated as the new Prime Minister of Hungary. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/09/hungary-prime-minister-peter-magyar-sworn-in-viktor-oban

I agree with the motivational idea that people should not mentally disqualify themselves just because the economy is bad. That part is useful. But I’m skeptical of the stronger claim that most people can become financially successful in any economy if they simply work hard enough, get creative enough, or think like entrepreneurs. Because that does not scale. Yes, some people made wealth during the Great Depression. Yes, some entrepreneurs made money during the 2008 crash. Yes, some highly resourceful individuals can find opportunity even in terrible conditions. But “some people can win” is not the same as “most people can win.” That distinction matters. A bad economy does not mean opportunity disappears completely. But it does mean opportunity becomes scarcer, more competitive, more unequal, and harder to access. If consumers are broke, credit is tight, wages are falling, businesses are failing, and people are afraid to spend money, then creativity alone cannot magically create enough profitable opportunities for most people. Even if everyone became ambitious. Even if everyone worked harder. Even if everyone tried to do something different. Even if everyone became more entrepreneurial. You would still run into the same bottleneck: Not enough demand. Not enough capital. Not enough access. Not enough stability. Not enough purchasing power. That is why I’m skeptical of turning individual success stories into a universal economic philosophy. The fact that an outlier succeeded during a recession does not prove that most people could have done the same. It proves that outliers exist. And outliers are not a theory of mass prosperity. If most people could become financially successful in any economy through sheer ambition and creativity, then why did societies need major reforms like the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society, financial regulation, labor protections, social insurance, stimulus programs, and public investment? Those reforms existed because markets do not automatically give most people a free and fair shot. The economy has to be governed. It has to be stabilized. It has to be structured so that ordinary people’s effort can actually turn into real opportunity. So yes, I believe in personal agency. I believe in ambition. I believe in creativity. I believe in not using the economy as an excuse to give up. But I do not believe that most people can simply “hustle” their way into financial success during bad economic times. The better distinction is this: A bad economy still contains opportunities for some people. But it is not necessarily structured in favor of most people. That is the difference between individual possibility and broad-based prosperity.

We should have better government policy that helps the homeless and the struggling, but I still am skeptical that most people can succeed during bad economic times like Leo and others like him are saying.

How do you tell that to a homeless person who can get food only from bread lines, sickly, and may or may not be able to survive? How do you tell that to a working-class person or family who is or are constantly living on edge and may not be able to make rent or struggling to pay off their mortgage despite their best efforts?

But what about those who can't or couldn't succeed from no fault of their own despite their best efforts?

Fair enough — I understand you’re not saying it’s “just mindset.” But I still think there’s a difference between saying: 1. The economy is enormous and there are always opportunities somewhere, and 2. The economy is always “in your favor” in a practical or broadly accessible sense. Because if the economy were always naturally in people’s favor, then why did America need the early 1900s Progressive Era reforms, the New Deal, the Great Society, the governance reforms after the stagflation crisis of the 1970s/early 1980s, and later economic interventions under Clinton, Obama, and Biden? Those reforms existed because markets and economies do not automatically give the greatest number of people a free and fair shot at becoming economically or financially successful. They required political governance, regulation, public investment, labor protections, social insurance, anti-poverty programs, and crisis management to make broad-based prosperity more realistic. So I agree that highly resourceful individuals can still find opportunity in almost any economy. But that’s different from saying the economy is “always in your favor.” Maybe the better distinction is: The economy always contains opportunities. But whether the economy is actually in your favor depends on how it is governed, structured, and accessed.

but when would two or three of the conservative US supreme court plan to retire? What if all of the 6 conservatives on the bench never retire even during the next presidential term?

Responding to Leo's recent IG video on "The economy is never why you aren't wealthy": I get the value of pushing people toward extreme personal responsibility. But how do you avoid collapsing everything into “it’s just your mindset”? At what point do you acknowledge that system-level constraints are the dominant factor—like during the Great Depression— rather than individual psychology? What’s your actual method for separating the two in real life?

Okay, well then, if you are not a native German and you actually happen to be Iranian, then that's different. Sorry. In fact, in that case, I fully sympathize with your support for Palestine and Palestinians. To be clear, I fully acknowledge that there have been self-described leftists who were responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. Those were communist and Marxist-Leninist rulers including Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others like them. But those rulers did not embody the true emancipatory meaning of left-wing politics. They betrayed it. They claimed to stand for workers, equality, liberation, anti-imperialism, and the oppressed, but in practice they built totalitarian police states, crushed dissent, created leader cults, ruled through fear, and treated human beings as disposable instruments of the state. So yes, they used left-wing language. But the way they actually governed was authoritarian, hierarchical, militarized, anti-democratic, paranoid, and brutally oppressive. In practice, they reproduced many of the same power dynamics seen in fascist, far-right, monarchic, imperial, colonial, and theocratic regimes. And that is the part people love to ignore: emperors, kings, colonial rulers, slaveholding elites, religious tyrants, and racial supremacists were not necessarily “right-wingers” in the modern electoral sense. But in practice, they operated through many of the same core power dynamics as fascists, far-right dictators, and ultranationalists: absolute hierarchy, domination, dehumanization, racial or religious supremacy, repression of dissent, militarism, conquest, forced labor, and the belief that certain groups of people could be ruled over, exploited, expelled, enslaved, or eliminated. That is the deeper historical pattern. Mass atrocity does not come from “the left” or “the right” in some cartoonish way. It comes from unchecked authoritarian power, dehumanization, ideological fanaticism, militarism, supremacy, and systems that place the ruler, state, race, empire, religion, or party above human life. So no, I am not denying communist atrocities. I am saying communist dictators are one modern category of atrocity-producers, not the whole story of atrocity in world history. Across history, many of the worst atrocities have also come from fascists, far-right dictators, emperors, kings, colonial rulers, slaveholding elites, religious tyrants, racial supremacists, ethnic nationalists, and ultranationalists. Hitler was not some left-wing humanitarian gone wrong. Mussolini was not some progressive reformer gone too far. Franco was not some champion of liberation. These were authoritarian right-wing rulers and movements built on hierarchy, repression, militarism, nationalism, anti-left politics, and the crushing of human freedom. And Netanyahu is not some moderate liberal statesman either. His government is a radical right-wing, ethnonationalist, militarized project. I have never excused what Netanyahu and his government have done to innocent Palestinians. I totally hate it. The mass killing, starvation, displacement, humiliation, and collective punishment of Palestinian civilians is morally disgusting and indefensible. So using Palestinian suffering to whitewash far-right politics or to be for a radical right-winger like Dan Bilzerian is absurd. The people brutalizing Palestinians today are not left-wing social democrats. They are overwhelmingly coming from a radical right-wing governing project. That is why Dan Bilzerian does not impress me just because he says one correct thing about Palestine. He looks like another far-right winger trying to use Palestinian suffering as a moral shield for his own reactionary politics. If someone only cares about Palestinian children when it gives them an excuse to attack liberals, Jews, immigrants, Muslims, women, minorities, or the left, then they are not actually standing for universal human rights. They are exploiting Palestinian blood for their own ideological agenda. Opposing the slaughter of Palestinian children is morally necessary. But it does not magically make far-right politics humane, principled, or safe. A person can be right about one atrocity and still be wrong, poisonous, bigoted, authoritarian, or dangerous in the broader political sense. The consistent position is simple: oppose the massacre of Palestinian children, oppose U.S. and Western complicity, oppose Israeli occupation and apartheid, oppose antisemitism, oppose Islamophobia, and oppose authoritarian far-right politics everywhere.

Ok, to be quite frank, native Germans have absolutely no right to say what's good for the Jews/Israel or even what is the right thing to do for the rest of humanity including who would be best for the Palestinians. You guys totally lost that argument, especially when Germany allowed such an unfathomable abomination rise to power and commit the greatest evil ever in human history, especially on the Jews. Not to mention that Hitler was an extreme right-winger just like Dan Bilzerian and Trump are. I am glad that Germany became a strong supporter of Israel after WWII, but that's still not good enough.

Wait, are you actually from Germany? Dan Bilzerian has no real plan or experience for getting anything done for the people. He's actually part of the wealthy elites and corporate tyrants, who need to be held accountable for their corruption and crimes. I would focus on that if I were you. We need an FDR like hero more than ever before

This is why we may need another Great Depression, a mass labor movement, a major breakdown in the right-wing media ecosystem, progressive media ecosystem that dominates the media environment, and an FDR-like savior to save and fix our country.