Intreb pentru ca nu trebuie sa faca Iohannis nominalizarea ? Sincer sa fiu , nici eu nu am ineles niciodata argumentele veganilorvegetarienilor . <| sep |> From who ? Him and his 100 strong army of pensioners ? <| sep |> inte alls som vanligt , thanks ! <| sep |> Yes ! You don ' t have another nat 3 that does so many different debuffs ! Double aoe , def scaling damage , potential chloewoosa counter , aoe defbreak , stun on first skill . On top of that no elemental disadvantage . I love him ! <| sep |> ikr ? How do they know which penor enter the other ? <| sep |> SPLC is not an antihate organization , but a political one . It should be treated as such . <| sep |> PVGNA must be one of the worst names a company can have . <| sep |> the 1 % strive to be rich because money is the means of power in this society . If money is abundunt like your system , why would anyone cherish that ? Money is the means of power , but money is designed to be abundant . If money is not abundant then people would start to stock it , and it would cease to function as money . If you look at the financial reports of those rich people , they don ' t hold their wealth in cash . They invest them into companies , buy real estates , and participate in the market . UBI doesn ' t change that a bit , since we already have Quantitive Easing . The difference is only that UBI distributes the additional money into people ' s hands , while QE gives them to the Wall Street . Remember , the whole point of people in your system is to buy goods made by the manufacturers so if they all go on strike and refuse to work and force the government to give more money , the government would have to give in because that ' s the whole system . We don ' t even need an if here . It ' s exactly what happened in 2008 . Not that they intentionally went on a strike , but that they don ' t have money to maintain the factories . Not even factories , credit balance sheets . The government had to give in and started printing money . As a result the economy recovered but only the elite part which received the money . In the end it ' s what a government has to do in order to maintain a stable economy to absorb risks . Risks lead to economic loss and to absorb it , the government prints money . Actual analysis would be more complicated , like how much to print to absorb how much loss , and how to inject the printed money , etc , but the general idea holds . On the other hand , this is not trickle down economics . Trickle down doesn ' t work . We know money tend to go up . So why not put money down there , and let it trickle up ?