Further been expressing my desire for a GPT phone where on the Lock Screen u visually see your AI assistant or agent and it sees you. Basically a H.E.R. Phone that does everything for you and interacts with AI agents (businesses, friends, families, etc) to get things done for you via chat, text, hand, facial gestures... basically a human AI in ur phone that does everything for u.

No doubt such gets poo-poo(ed) as I think only 25 to 40 percent of phone users use Siri, Alexa, etc. a lot don't use it cause it just hadn't worked well for them to privacy concerns. But innovation and Apple is getting reamed for not being innovative.. not even matching what the chatGPT app offers.

Crash the economy on the backs of a majority of workers (federal workers are large portion democrats) who didn't vote for you so interests rates / inflation goes down.

I’d be curious to see a breakdown, aren’t a lot of federal jobs in red states? Besides I’m more interested in the second order impacts, what happens when those people stop spending in their communities?

Government employees draw their money from taxes, inflation, or debt that's paid by one of the two. Stop spending is a bit of a myth, it reverts the spending to whatever productive entity in the economy it was taken from.

> Stop spending is a bit of a myth, it reverts the spending to whatever productive entity in the economy it was taken from.

It takes a while for this too happen though right, during which time there’s some “economic pain” as the euphemism goes.

Yes it takes time. There should be some temporary deflation to taxpayers though as the shit canned officials sell off their goods and houses, if the premise sister proposed is true that they go belly up on mortgage and rent.

Huh? If you or anyone loses a job and can not find another for a few months to many there's no doubt they won't be contributing to the economy.

Government employees are funded by taxing or inflating away wealth from the productive economy. That wealth doesn't evaporate when the government employee is fired, it is instead reverts back for spending to the entities from which it came. It's in another person's pocket who themselves can fuel the local economy, not gone.

lol in ur example your saying one person out of two contributing to the economy makes the economy stronger... say what. The govt employee can no longer contribute as their job moved into the commercial sector. Which now a 2nd individual is benefiting / contributing while the former govt employee can not pay they're bills, mortgage, put any money into the economy and etc , etc.

Simple math ...Both ppl in ur example contributing to the economy makes for a strong economy.

The main argument for government employees is not that they generate more wealth spending than the private sector. If that were the case we'd just make everyone government employees.

Generally the government is worse at generating wealth (in fact, they almost entirely rely on taking wealth others could otherwise spend and then spending it themselves) to spend than the private sector. Firing a government employee who then must work in the private sector doesn't imply reduced spending on anything but the most short sighted of timelines.

That's if the govt employee finds same level of pay or better in the private sector to possibly even another job in a timely fashion. If and only then they can continue to pay their bills, mortgage and contribute to the economy. If you spend time one hacker news you will see many techies out of work not able to find another job for months or more as well the argument of the fake job listings.

I'm doubtful of your argument and the economy will go into a recession.. on Fox news Trump today wouldn't say it would or wouldn't .. not reassuring but that's what I think that's what he wants to happen ..he just won't say it outright but this plan could back fire (he's playing with fire) and cause pain to every citizen!

I think the trouble you're having in understanding here is that the government workers paycheck came from violently taking it from someone else, not from market value of generating something that can be spent.

Imagine you farm and create 200 apples, you go to the crossroads and offer them for sale, and earn $200. Someone comes along, and having themselves spent the day building a table, offers it to you for $200 and you take it. Youve both spent your earnings and even better, you now both feel better off than before. You use the table to better work on your implements for apples, generating more value and spending.

Now suppose, instead, you go to the crossroads, you sell your apples, make $200. Someone comes along, takes that $200, maybe with a badge that says 'taxman', and says "not to worry, we will give it to an employee that will spend it!."

Now maybe that employee will spend your $200 building a table for you or someone else, but he's under no economic pressure to do -- he already has your money. It's just as likely he uses it to create 30 rifle cartridges that get shot into a mountain in Afghanistan. That doesn't increase spending, it just takes what you were going to spend and spends it on something else. If you fire that person, and they're forced to now build tables, spending increases even if they are now paid less.

As a bisexual dude (I live quietly and openly with who needs to know my life.. I don't impose on anyone ), they are the 2nd biggest reason why Trump Is our current president. They tried to impose ideas that are not logical onto the majority and they are very very small minority. And now we have Trump besides inflation that's probably the second biggest thing the majority of all Americans disliked & wanted to say it via their vote.