[–] deboulaymxf 16d ago ↗ What a terribly thought out article from the Economist. All this neoliberal bullshit is a waste of thought.Advocating for improving the bus system for low income folks. What are you advocating for? Getting rid of public buses?This wasn’t worth the ink it would have been printed on if people still Bought print editions of the economist.I hate how this masquerades as serious thought for people who should clearly know better.This is drivelThis is nonsenseThis is not smart thinking [–] tene80i 16d ago ↗ It’s a perfectly clear argument. If you disagree, explain why. Ranting about it being nonsense is tedious. [–] jaggs 16d ago ↗ I'm with you on this one. But then again, it's the Economist right? Hardly worth critiquing. :) [–] pestatije 16d ago ↗ it might not be smart thinking, but every time i see a bus with 2 passengers my unsmart thinking thinks im paying for the driver the petrol and the bus, and if you push me even for the upkeep of the road it drives on
[–] tene80i 16d ago ↗ It’s a perfectly clear argument. If you disagree, explain why. Ranting about it being nonsense is tedious.
[–] jaggs 16d ago ↗ I'm with you on this one. But then again, it's the Economist right? Hardly worth critiquing. :)
[–] pestatije 16d ago ↗ it might not be smart thinking, but every time i see a bus with 2 passengers my unsmart thinking thinks im paying for the driver the petrol and the bus, and if you push me even for the upkeep of the road it drives on
5 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 11.7 ms ] threadAdvocating for improving the bus system for low income folks. What are you advocating for? Getting rid of public buses?
This wasn’t worth the ink it would have been printed on if people still Bought print editions of the economist.
I hate how this masquerades as serious thought for people who should clearly know better.
This is drivel
This is nonsense
This is not smart thinking