An ad hominum attack and a distinction without a difference is a hell of a response to "who is this guy".
Do you want to show the class where on your wallet the Keynesian model of economics touched you? (Or do you perhaps have a "Krugman sucks and you shouldn't listen to him" link you'd like to share?)
People making things worse isn't a natural state.
To give an example off the top of my head, the US House of Representatives used to be even worse. An interpretation of the Constitution's quorum clause became traditional in that if a rep would not answer "present" when called to a vote they were counted as not in attendance. Essentially, a minority faction gave themselves a veto on the whole body. This persisted for decades until one speaker just said "I can see you there", and the body got slightly better.
(That it was latter became bad all over again in new and clever ways is a slightly different issue.)
Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who used to have a column in the NY Times. He has a relatively impressive record of predicting terrible things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman
And while I certainly don't want to push back on the difference between heroin and other opium derivatives, it's worth noting that legally speaking they're both exactly as illegal when not used as prescribed for the treatment of pain or disease.
It's not a blog post about heroin or opiates, though, so quibbling over the imperfections of his analogy is kinda missing the point. Please give it another read if you have a few minutes; the analogy is fairly apt, though very depressing as an American.
I'm glad you took it in the spirit it was intended. (Slightly chiding, but well-meaning.)
I think it can be really hard to not pass on our bad habits to our kids. Mine have a room just as messy as mine ever was, and they're at least as bad at doing their homework as I ever was.
Good job so far!
But neither wants to eat them.
Respectfully, if neither of your children have a vegetable* dish they will eat as a snack you haven't exposed them to a wide enough array of vegetables and vegetables preparation methods.
Don't be afraid to add salt, roast instead of boil, or just experiment with things you haven't tried.
(*: And "vegetable" here is strictly in a culinary context, excluding grains and near-grains like potatoes and including savory sead-bearing plant-parts like cucumbers. But if they don't even like a form of potato or a grain, you may have a eating disorder on your hand...)
No, because that's already the constitutional quorum. You could alter or abandon the cloture rule, however.
Changing Senate rules can be done as a simple act of the Senate, with a simple majority of the senators who show up voting in the affirmative (and VPOTUS casting a tiebreaker.)
Don't hold your breath, however. Unless the 2026 blue wave results in 70 democratic senators who can remove trump after impeachment, the incentive to radically change anything is dramatically reduced.
do you really need to resort to baseless ad hominems for your argument?
It wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was a genuine statement of fraternal love, as Jesus taught His followers to strive for.
You don't have a "claim", you have an anti-christian (and anti-relgious) bias I suspect I couldn't talk you out of with a time-travelling phone box and a univerally-translating fish.
I hope whatever hurt you can't hurt you anymore, and that you find love and joy in your life.
Value for resources is also highly subjective.
If I have zero water and $50, but you have 50 waters and $0, I would value one of your waters more than one of my dollars and you would value one of my dollars more than one of your waters. And so we would trade, and both be happier for it.
Science is not a search for truth. It's a search for provable falsehoods and useful theories.
The beauty about actual science, as opposed to the fanfic and bragging that scientists need to publish to get paid, is that we can resolve contradictory theorems through experimentation
Massachusetts and NY raised taxes on the rich, and yet their revenues did not plummet.
Is there any contrary instance we can find where taxes were raised on the rich specifically and revenues dropped?
(And if so, get the academics back to refine their theories, make more predictions, and let's see who's more accurate!)
I don't think it's often useful to react to contrary evidence as special case exceptions.
The "tragedy of the commons" is a real thing, but it's also literally what "the cathedral and the bazar" is about. I would argue that the awareness and intentional action made based on either side of this mode is why technology seems to behave differently from other areas of human society.
Generalizing from the specific, I think it's more helpful to say "things tend to change randomly over time, and people can be resistant to sudden change which is not obviously better."
Since random change is more likely to be a change for the worse than a change for the better, societies will have a tendency to slowly become worse as time goes on. But the worse something gets the easier it is for people to discard it, and since intentional changes for the better are so often deliberate they also are often improvements to the best of what came before.
Enshittification occurs more as a deliberate act to increase revenue or decrease cost, which is a whole different ball game.