In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Sure that was a factor but as I said saving was up and spending was down, which caused an increase in wealth. How much or what percentage is irrelevant to my claim.
That’s just semantic
If everyone was rich , everyone would almost be equal ?
Sounds pretty much like communism.
Who would do the trash ?
Who would fix the plumbing?
It’s impossible everyone being rich at the same time .
Maybe we don’t have the same definition of being rich .
For me rich means you have enough money, wealth , w.e you mean , so you don’t have to work another day in your life .
That’s just semantic If everyone was rich , everyone would almost be equal ?Sounds pretty much like communism.Who would do the trash ? Who would fix the plumbing? It’s impossible everyone being rich at the same time .Maybe we don’t have the same definition of being rich .For me rich means you have enough money, wealth , w.e you mean , so you don’t have to work another day in yo
I agree that not everyone could be that rich at the same time. So what're you arguing that since we can't all be idle rich no one should be able to?
I agree that not everyone could be that rich at the same time. So what're you arguing that since we can't all be idle rich no one should be able to?
😃
not at all.
But the concept of people are poor because its their own fault should be discarded since we know the system makes it so, that some will have to always be stuck at the bottom of the barrel regardless what they do.
Hence the need to make the system a bit more "fairer" and agree a minimum should be allocated to make sure the bottom have enough to keep the system running.
if that means capping gains or have a bit less billionaires because they would have to pay a bit more taxes i wouldnt care at all about it.
lets be serious, 100 dollar for a billionaires does not have the same utility has someone living in poverty.
someone having 1 billion will still be pretty rich if he ends up at 999 million after 1 year of taxation increase ( im just throwing numbers out my a$$ to make a point).
and 899 millions after 100 years of 1 million taxation....
I don’t disagree much with that. But my point is that taxing the rich won’t help the poor much, because taxing the rich doesn’t increase the production of goods for the poor to consume. In the end, helping the poor means redistributing a greater portion of the goods we produce to them. There’s just no other way to do that than by compressing the entire wage scale. For example, in the USSR a factory director might have made only 2–3 times what workers made, with professionals falling somewhere in the middle. That’s about as equal a distribution of production output as we can get while still taking into account the different ambitions and abilities people have in society.
My entire argument is that we can’t raise the bottom 50% to the level you’re talking about without reducing consumption from the upper-middle class. There’s no way to give a significantly larger share of total output to the bottom half unless the people above them take a smaller share. You can shift things around at the margins with taxes, but the basic arithmetic doesn’t change: if you want the bottom to consume more stuff, then someone above them has to consume less stuff. Period.
So if we’re talking casual blame for why the bottom half isn’t doing better, it’s mostly the upper-middle class disproportionately hoarding consumption, not people hoarding wealth. Not that I would use those terms.
First apparent legitimate case of a snuff film found, which was on sale on telegram. Vietnamese civil servant suspect arrested for the murder. Other similar videos of Asian men being butchered have since apparently surfaced hinting at a wider market than the Vietnamese case. I'm highly impressed with the diligent efforts of Vietnamese netizens to bring the alleged killer to justice.
Yeah, in hindsight I probably should have put a warning out first.
More socialism planned to resolve issues created by this administration
More socialism planned to resolve issues created by this administration
I thought maga hated communism
(pardon, socialism tho the distinction isnt necessary, they cant differentiate the 2)
or tariffs was a great idea ….
I thought maga hated communism
(pardon, socialism tho the distinction isnt necessary, they cant differentiate the 2)
or tariffs was a great idea ….
Thanks to the tariffs there is money for the socialism. So it's all good.
I never perceive you has a woke leftish socialist evil Democrat before ?
How is a $12 billion bailout for farmers considered socialism?
The government caused the problem with these tariffs and is now giving back money directly to farmers so they can continue running their farms privately.
They aren’t taking control or ownership of the farms, they are backpeddling on their horribly designed govt imposed tariffs - pretty much the opposite.
Well, according to conservatives, Socialism is any time the government gives anyone any money for any reason and its always bad
How is a $12 billion bailout for farmers considered socialism?
The government caused the problem with these tariffs and is now giving back money directly to farmers so they can continue running their farms privately.
They aren’t taking control or ownership of the farms, they are backpeddling on their horribly designed govt imposed tariffs - pretty much the opposite.
They are redistributing wealth instead of letting the free market do its thing.
The farmers collectively got hit for more than 12 billion due to the tarrifs. Hitting them up for more then paying them back because you realize it was a govt **** up isn't as simple as saying you are redistributing wealth or not letting the market do its thing. Again, its more the other way.
Well, according to conservatives, Socialism is any time the government gives anyone any money for any reason and its always bad
+1
How is a $12 billion bailout for farmers considered socialism?
The government caused the problem with these tariffs and is now giving back money directly to farmers so they can continue running their farms privately.
They aren’t taking control or ownership of the farms, they are backpeddling on their horribly designed govt imposed tariffs - pretty much the opposite.
If you dont see bail out has a form of corporatism socialism
(and certainly not capitalism/free market)
then what is socialism ?
Isn’t it subsidies a socialist concept ?
Is tariffs at the core of real free market ?
Well, according to conservatives, Socialism is any time the government gives anyone any money for any reason and its always bad
I don't know what everyone's incorrect interpretation of the word is, nor would I use their definition to explain a specific situation for some reason. Seems like we do that enough and I don't see how that would be the +ev move towards understanding how things actually work.
I wonder why Republican always been against universal healthcare if it was described as capitalist system .
AI
Opposition to "Socialized Medicine": Republicans often conflate universal healthcare with single-payer or nationalized healthcare systems (like those in Canada or the UK), which they label "socialized medicine". This goes against their belief in private, market-based systems.
If you dont see bail out has a form of corporatism socialism
(and certainly not capitalism/free market)
then what is socialism ?
Isn’t it subsidies a socialist concept ?
Is tariffs at the core of real free market ?
I don't know what corporate socialism is.
The govt is essentially investing in a company when the bail them out - look into the govt equity stake in GM. It's like investing in forward tax returns - not out of the kindness of their heart. They are literally funding capitalism. And in the case with the farmers, they are paying back from a **** up to allow them to do their thing again.
I double checked the definition of socialism in case it changed and it's still the same. Feeding a private company money for w/e honest or crony reason is very far away from govt ownership of production. Corporate socialism is an oxymoron.
So socialism is only when the state own 100% of the ownership of a corporation ?
If a government comes in and by big chunk of equity , you wouldn’t see it has a the state gaining control of the production of the mean because it isn’t at 100% ?
Modern view of socialism is about having a safety net .
Corporation bail out is a form of safety net while capitalism would let them failed , letting other/better corporations to buy them cheaply and make those ressources better .
You disagree ?
Various governments, from the state of Utah to the European Union, have been experimenting with limiting children's use of social media.
But the most radical step so far is set to unfold in Australia - a ban for under-16s that kicks in on 10 December has left tech companies scrambling.
...
"Australia is engaged in blanket censorship that will make its youth less informed, less connected, and less equipped to navigate the spaces they will be expected to understand as adults," said Paul Taske from NetChoice, a trade group representing several big tech companies.
The worry inside the industry is that Australia's ban - the first of its kind - may inspire other countries.
"It could become a proof of concept that gains traction around the world," says Nate Fast, a professor at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business.
So socialism is only when the state own 100% of the ownership of a corporation ?If a government comes in and by big chunk of equity , you wouldn’t see it has a the state gaining control of the production of the mean because it isn’t at 100% ? Modern view of socialism is about having a safety net .Corporation bail out is a form of safety net while capitalism would let them fa
No, because they aren't gaining control of anything. It's in the govt's best interest to keep the companies stable because their own revenue comes from the taxes on the busineeses and the workers who work for them.
I think people have listened too much to Bill O'Rielly or something with the whole "that's socialism! shtick because safety nets are govt programs under a mixed market economy.
We've apparently equated safety nets as a form of socialism, which it isn't, and a mixed economy as some blend of socialism and capitalism, which it isn't.
...id imagine that the "that's socialism! messaging was an attempt to shift the overton window into thinking that any govt involvement made it so. But it becomes socialism when the govt takes over runs healthcare or the utilities - which it probably should.
I think we are obviously nitpicking over semantics and this conversation is silly but I just thought it was strange that the govt compensating farmers 12 billion dollars after hamstringing them could be seen as an act of socialism.
Words just don't seem to mean what they used to or I'm just not up with lingo.
