politics

The irony. I bet most MAGA have sub-median IQ.

Not all conservatives are stupid, they're too easy a pool to grift from but overwhelming, stupid people are conservative.

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. - John Stuart Mill

I bet most MAGA have sub-median IQ.

that's a safe bet

Judging from them aping Hungarian "pro-natalist" programs like the tax-writeoff, when they mean "we need more babies", they mean "we need more white babies from high-IQ families".

Context: The tax-writeoff for children actually comes from The Bell Curve, and Hungary first tried to implement it to try to incentivize richer people to have more kids, since they would get more money per child from the state. It got repealed by the centrist-liberal MSZP-SZDSZ after Fidesz lost the 2002 elections. However, to please the more right-libertarian parts of the SZDSZ, the replacement of it was technically a welfare trap, as some people could get more money from it than the minimum wage, which forced a lot of Roma people with bigger to either not work at all, or to work illegally, and ultimately created a hot bed for the local far-right to create their own brand of "welfare queen" narratives. While it wasn't as bad as the far-right wanted to paint it, them really focusing on a few crime cases commited by Roma (similar to the whole Casey Riley situation), they spinned the narrative to their side. And later on adding the disabled to the mix thanks to godawful jokes about the intellectually disabled then successfully convincing people that "rt** might be too stupid to even stand up thus they might be in wheelchair", used Forrest Gump to convince that disabled people only get jobs out of pity and "connections", and that "rich G*psy drug dealers pretend to be amputees to get enough welfare money for Mercedeses" (turned out that many of those cars belonged to old white lawyers). After the 2010 election, we got back our tax-writeoffs, and all our welfare system got destroyed in order to build a "work based society".

Also if you ask, the myth of "women using frequent abortions instead of birth control" came from that very same era of Hungarian politics, likely from Tamás "Tomcat" Polgár, who made embarassingly bad and fashy games before AndyPants.

Good, white people should have more children. Just like Lebensborn in Nazi Germany. And they also did this forced sterilization thing on "unworthy lifes".

As the contradictions grow with capitalism, they will fuel the revolutionary change of the proletariat...

https://sociology.institute/introduction-to-sociology/karl-marx-analysis-capitalism-historical-perspective/#the-contradictions-of-capitalism

I don't want to appear snobbish, but if economic prospects are bad, then you need even more people. In economics scale makes everything better.

Basic food is, if we think about it, very cheap. Even the USSR managed to solve that problem. Everyone could find buckwheat\rice\some other grain\potatoes\vegetables to eat, salt sold for food was mandated to be iodized, for prevention of scurvy even on very basic diet, and some (bad, ugly, but edible) fish conserves were generally available everywhere, also "sea cabbage".

Depending on area there'd also be (bad, thin, kinda soup-only, not the broilers you're used to, though about USA I've read that food products quality is not nice generally) chicken, some fish, some meat. Some fruit, something else. The previous paragraph described the baseline that was always there.

So hunger is avoidable even if the economy sucks huge stinking donkey balls.

If hunger is avoidable, having more people is, of course, a disadvantage in terms of social conflicts, but they don't have to fear that - the most angry and dumb part of the population is voting for them.

Notice that it doesn’t matter whether you think that AI can replace people, it only matters whether companies think that AI can replace people. Now, having children costs a lot of money, at least $100K, depending on where you live, and i understand people being reluctant about having children.

There's a bit of tunnel vision here, I think. It costs that to have children in the USA, but in Mexico it'd be cheaper probably.

That's because value is created by labor, if your labor isn't needed and you don't have a job, then you'd still produce value if you had one. And when you can't afford something, that disadvantaged labor might produce it. OK, I'm a shitty explainer, what I mean is that, if there are no regulations directly preventing it, there's a feedback of creating another bucket of demand and thus jobs to fulfill it. Not an economist.

I also advocate for UBI (universal basic income), but the way i see it today, there’s a high likelyhood that it will come, but will be too little to actually cover cost-of-living costs. I.e., it might be a “support”, providing $400/month no-strings-attached and it would definitely improve the living conditions of many people, especially in low-income households. But it would still not solve all problems.

It might create hyperinflation, first and foremost affecting those owning money and not assets. And your average person is more dependent on money as opposed to assets than a businessman or a company or a fund. I'm not an economist, that's just how I see it.