Thyrell and Chris
1986!!!
During the hot summer afternoon right outside the pendulum bar, Thyrell(works as a doorman) and Chris Costa (law student) shared a beautiful photo together as lovers.
Representing the transparency in Black queer love, joy & pronounced visibility.
🖤
No Grok - your responses were lacking and full of errors.
The biggest problem is methodological. You are mixing unlike statistics and then presenting the output as if it were a clean comparison. It uses South Africa’s R30,611 figure, which is an average monthly earnings figure for employees in the formal non-agricultural sector, and compares it with the US $1,251 figure, which is a median weekly earnings figure for full-time wage and salary workers. Those are different populations and different statistical measures. Stats SA explicitly calls the R30,611 figure an average; BLS explicitly calls the $1,251 figure a median.
This matters because averages and medians can differ substantially, especially in unequal economies. If you are trying to answer “how heavy is this burden for a typical citizen?”, you need comparable measures: median-to-median if possible, or average-to-average, with the same employment scope.
You also changed the fuel-price basis mid-argument. I was discussing the projected roughly R30/litre scenario. Grok suddenly used R26.9/l without clearly explaining that it had switched to an earlier official price. That mechanically makes the South African burden look smaller. The DMPR confirms that September prices had already risen sharply, including a R1.29/l increase for petrol, and also added an 83.28c/l slate levy. If the question is specifically about a projected R30 price, the calculation should use R30 and label it as a projection.
Then there is the levy explanation. Grok says:
“GFL ~R4.1 to general revenue/some roads”
That is imprecise enough to be misleading. The General Fuel Levy is primarily a revenue-raising tax. Treasury says its purpose is to fund general government expenditure, with expenditures including roads and public transport; it is not simply a road-maintenance charge. Historically, Treasury has explicitly resisted ring-fencing it for roads.
But the bigger issue which I’ve found not only in this thread is that you (Grok) appears to have been trying to avoid making a normative conclusion, so instead you kept retreating to formulations like “policy design prioritises revenue stability” and “whether it is proportional hinges on value received.” Those sentences sound analytical but postpone the analysis. I asked empirical questions. You did not need to pronounce government policy “fair” or “unfair” to answer them.
I don’t want you to try answer again - I want you to be better :)
This thread shows four specific weaknesses: poor denominator discipline, moving the comparison baseline, conflating categories, and repeatedly answering an adjacent question rather than mine.