seeigel

Please read the article. It's one of the most important things to know.

Eben nicht. Die meisten fahren angemessen. Es geht darum, dies als Vorbild zu nutzen.

Danke.

Im Artikel geht es um die Autobahn. Dort gibt es keine Radfahrer und Fussgänger.

Der Witz ist doch, dass der Autor Rücksicht fordert, aber nicht gründlich in den Rückspiegel geschaut hat.

Er argumentiert dafür, dass die starken sich wie die schwachen verhalten sollen, damit die schwachen weniger aufpassen müssen.

Rücksicht geht in beide Richtungen. Wenn die starken die schwachen unterstützen sollen, dann müssen die schwachen auch die Stärke der starken respektieren. Alles andere erzeugt Resentiments und führt dazu, dass die starken die Regeln, wenn überhaupt, nur formal einhalten.

Am Tempolimit sieht man, wie die Werte zersetzt werden, denen Deutschland den Wohlstand verdankt.

How does science know if something is true, with experiments.

So we need software that enhances the voices of those who we want to hear.

Seems like you don't know this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

I think I point out the obstacle to people making a living. There is no easy answer. Rising minumum wage sounds easy but as I wrote, it is a distraction.

The past doesn't tell you what to do, especially not when your recordings of history are wrong. If you cannot trust your history, how are you going to make decisions?

I was arguing that history is not needed when we have access to all experiences so we can ignore history if it is tainted.

You say that relying on wrong history is dangerous and in the original comment, you say that well cited information is essential.

There is no real contradiction but you have shown how access to information can be changed, or framed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

Please don't ignore my second paragraph.

I haven't found a good article that explains the early AfD position so I try to explain what I can remember.

The core should be that one currency for an inhomogenuous political entity is not a good idea. Usually, countries with weak industries can devalue their currency to offer their goods at competitive prices on the global market. This effectively means taking value from whomever owns money or receives wages that don't adjust immediately.

If there is only one currency, and if that currency should remain stable, somebody else has to pay to adjust the prices. This can be seen in Germany after the unification when there were additional taxes in the west to finance the east.

Now the promise to the Germans was that the euro would be stable but also that they wouldn't have to pay for it.

Economically, this doesn't make sense, as scientists had pointed out, but they were ignored. (Thus the original AfD, to have an alternative to the established parties.)

Now the euro is quite stable. So who paid?

You are welcome.

What's your opinion if you don't mind me asking?

It's the wrong side to tackle the problem.

Wages can be risen with an increased demand for workers. How? That is the relevant question that leads to the right answers. Minimum wage is a distraction.