Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
8/10/2024, 2:42:57 AM
X
In reply to:
truthseeker
@mailtrv
·
536d
@GaryMarcus Elon is far more qualified than the people in the govt doing finance. You are just no more than an Elon opposer.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
536d
Oh god. Now he thinks he is an economist.
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
537d
The rise in prices (inflation) is caused by government overspending, which increases the amount of money faster than the increase in goods & services output.

That is the vast majority of the problem.

Inflation was particularly bad during the Covid years, as there was massive…

The statement by @mailtrv constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about the qualifications of individuals discussing economic policies, which is a public issue. The tone is somewhat dismissive and defensive, aiming to counter the claim that Elon Musk is more qualified than government economists.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the dismissive tone could be seen as undermining constructive dialogue.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does dismiss the qualifications of others in a somewhat disrespectful manner. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it dismisses the opposing view without providing a constructive argument. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It dismisses the opposing view without addressing the substance of the argument, which could be seen as a minor ad hominem attack. [-1]