President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of Capitalism, but I know the answer to this one! The same way you get any population on board with your political agenda. Propaganda.
I have quite an easy time imagining a world without capitalism (or at least without a lot of the abuses of modern capitalism), especially the further in the future you go. I have a very hard time imagining a true and near term transition away from capitalism for a country like the U.S. that doesn't involve a ton of upheaval and turmoil.
"Propaganda" is a dismaying response given the significant negative connotations of the word.
yes. what I saw from you above was that, capitalism without the capitalism. your worries about how seizing the means of production will affect the stock market are not compatible with serious visions of a post-capitalist society.
yes. what I saw from you above was that, capitalism without the capitalism. your worries about how seizing the means of production will affect the stock market are not compatible with serious visions of a post-capitalist society.
You are assuming that what I envision is what I want. I very easily could see a future in which a very small number of people have wealth beyond description -- far, far beyond Elon level -- and they maintain social control by implementing systems in which no one is truly impoverished. Everyone has enough to eat and clean water to drink. Everyone has safe housing. Everyone has access to education (albeit only the sort of education that the unimaginably wealthy want them to have). Everyone has access to health care (with the same caveat as education). No one has to work themselves to death. Everyone has an ample supply of diversions. But market transactions still occur. Whether you would call this world capitalist, market socialist, or something else is just semantics.
And whether this would be a good world is probably a matter of perspective. If you have trouble feeding your kids, it's a better world for you than the one you live in now. If you are wealthy enough to value things like independence above things like food or housing security, then you might have a different perspective. (And even if you are wealthy enough to not have personal worries about things like food security, you might prefer the new world on the ground that it eliminates that concern for others.)
In any case, even if this new world were better than the current world, it certainly isn't the best future world I can imagine.
richly ironic coming from a country with a massive prison slave* labor industry
*I'm sorry, our prisoners are paid some ridiculously tiny amount of money for their labor, so they're not technically slaves, all is well, please ignore
I disagree, I think prisoners are overpaid if anything. How many Americans are able to afford housing (and some of these complexes comes with basketball courts, libraries and other amenities), food, personal chefs, an elite security system and some of there housing comes with free educational courses? And they are able to afford all of this on there part-time salary.
You also are misconstruing my comment about the market. Regardless of whether you place any social value on the market going up or down, the phenomenon that I described would be a real practical impediment to the transition away from capitalism that would have to be overcome. It's fine to argue that the end goal is worth the difficulty of overcoming a practical impediment. It is absurd to say that you don't need to consider the practical impediment or how to overcome it because "the market" wouldn't be a relevant concept in your version of a post-capitalist society. You still have to get from Point A to Point B, either through persuasion or force.
I disagree, I think prisoners are overpaid if anything. How many Americans are able to afford housing (and some of these complexes comes with basketball courts, libraries and other amenities), food, personal chefs, an elite security system and some of there housing comes with free educational courses? And they are able to afford all of this on there part-time salary.
Do you realize how ridiculous it is to describe prisoners as if they are wealthy people lliving on highly secure compounds with private basketball courts, private chefs, and private libraries?
They COULD sell those things or even issue important/necessary goods out without cost* if the powers that be were interested in improving the material conditions for all citizens. They could, and should, nationalize Amazon and use its delivery infrastructure to ensure prompt delivery of goods to all Americans, including the ones living in a remote area who would likely be unde
This is a really bad idea.
btw, we already have a delivery infrastructure. It just isn't nearly as good because, well, it's the government.
How ironic is it the tax payer funded and govt run delivery infrastructure had a first to market advantage over Amazon but amazon comes along and starts beating its ass (because that is what the private sector does when it faces govt competition) and emptythecities idea is for the govt to steal amazon.
Emptytheskull, think a few moves ahead... govt tried and failed, amazon comes and wins so if govt steals amazon what happens next?
...the answer is that someone creates amazon2 and amazon1 that is run by the govt fails then govt has to steal amazon2 and this process repeats itself again.
Except they took those pennies and reallocated them to billionaire's pockets, so no savings.
We are saying the same thing. I said what govt reduces in spending goes to taxpayers and you said the exact same thing.
Yeah, he fought to keep the amount of govt handouts as small as he could because he knew he couldn't prevent them. Then because trump loves trump he wanted his name on them.
Do you honestly believe Jeff Bezos, who could live comfortably, even extravagantly, for a thousand years with 1 billion dollars should get to own 262 times that while other people actually starve through no fault of their own? Do you honestly even think he's done something worthy of that?I will never understand why anyone would think that. It just has to be a shocking lack of e
I'm fine and dandy like cotton candy with heavily taxing rich folks.
I was specifically opposing ETC2's belief that ALL of Bezos wealth should be confiscated:
Jeff Bezos is worth 280 billion dollars. 771,000 Americans experienced homelessness in 2024. If anybody can look at these two facts side-by-side and NOT come to the conclusion that we very desperately need to relieve Bezos of "his"* wealth and ship it to those in extreme need, I don't want to have anything to do with you.*built upon the blood, sweat, tears, broken bodies and
We are saying the same thing. I said what govt reduces in spending goes to taxpayers and you said the exact same thing.
No. We said nothing similar.
I disagree, I think prisoners are overpaid if anything. How many Americans are able to afford housing (and some of these complexes comes with basketball courts, libraries and other amenities), food, personal chefs, an elite security system and some of there housing comes with free educational courses? And they are able to afford all of this on there part-time salary.
Careful. This one outs you as nothing but shitty troll account.
Do you realize how ridiculous it is to describe prisoners as if they are wealthy people lliving on highly secure compounds with private basketball courts, private chefs, and private libraries?
It's satire. He finally makes a good and funny post and you guys jump all over it.
Unclear whether or not bahamicky is capable of being satirical.
Satire only works if it sufficiently contrasts with the poster's normal posting.
It was unclear to me until this post.
It's MUCH more ridiculous and obviously self-aware. Maybe hyperbolic is a better word?
Sadly, I think this is sincere. I know several brokers IRL that believe almost exactly this. Also, their desire to make rich people richer is so weird and the general belief that taxing them more appropriately will somehow discourage them from working.
If this post truly was intended to be satirical and funny, then it was the first such post I have ever seen from bahbah. But stranger things have happened I suppose.
If this post truly was intended to be satirical and funny, then it was the first such post I have ever seen from bahbah. But stranger things have happened I suppose.
It wasnt satire obviously. But I'm pretty sure I'm not getting a basketball court in Nut Nut's compound. He assured me a guitar and possibly an oil paint kit in which id like to formally request for a piano instead over the guitar if thats still possible. Also my work fix8ng trucks was 100% unpaid, outside of making him happy.
Sadly, I think this is sincere. I know several brokers IRL that believe almost exactly this. Also, their desire to make rich people richer is so weird and the general belief that taxing them more appropriately will somehow discourage them from working.
Depends on the Laffer Curve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_cur...
In economics, the Laffer curve illustrates a theoretical relationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of the government's tax revenue. The Laffer curve assumes that no tax revenue is raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100%, meaning that there is a tax rate between 0% and 100% that maximizes government tax revenue.[a][1][2]
I don't think you can promote this view without getting into the details. The main reason why your view seems "simple" is because you are not addressing the complexities of bringing your world into existence. A few obvious questions are:Do you intend to seize wealth by changing the law or ignoring the law? If you plan to change the law, how do you plan to overcome the apparen
When I say "it" is simple, or an easy game, what I mean is that the measures I propose are neither complicated nor difficult to implement... as long as the powers that be have the will to do so. I have no delusions that any of my suggestions are likely to occur given our actual political environment. Given my understanding of the world as it is, I am very much "blackpilled" or nihilistic; the current system seems extremely firmly entrenched. I think the only way that radical systemic political change of any kind will occur in developed countries is if they collapse. The desires that I express in this forum aren't recommended bits of political action. They're musings. That's all any of us have.
For instance, the way I would prefer to deal with "the extreme global mobility of the world's wealthiest citizens" would be to dissolve all nations and operate under a one-world framework of government and democratically controlled industry. No tax haven island nations, no rogue countries with non-extradition laws in which to hide, etc. Will that happen, ever? I strongly doubt it.
I don't pretend to have any solution regarding how to, say, dismantle the Republican Party and some 90% of the Democratic Party, which would be one of the first things required to implement a collectivist economic system in the US. These things seem like completely intractable problems. I just believe that many of my proposed ideas would be greatly beneficial to mankind AND relatively easily achieved if the powerful had the desire to do so.
I think that almost all of our musings in this politics forum are a form of mental masturbation borne out of a sense of hopelessness and desperation. This is why I'm mostly ignoring your questions -- I don't think they're bad questions in a vacuum, it's that I don't think they are relevant. This is why I try to not get very upset at "incrementalism" -- those who think that mass societal change will happen as soon as a critical mass of people understand Marxist theory, or whatever, are delusional. Very significant society-wide political change seems to only happen when the prior status quo collapses. The Civil War, Germany's mass poverty after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, etc.
Power is what really matters. Without it, nothing is possible, with it, anything is possible. How to obtain power? Beats the hell out of me. Any left-wing attempt at a mass movement within the US will surely be quickly co-opted by the Democrats.
In the meantime, it's a lot less fun to admit "everything is ****ed" than to put that in the back of your mind and go back and forth with other posters about ideas which will likely never see the light of day.
When I say "it" is simple, or an easy game, what I mean is that the measures I propose are neither complicated nor difficult to implement... as long as the powers that be have the will to do so. I have no delusions that any of my suggestions are likely to occur given our actual political environment. Given my understanding of the world as it is, I am very much "blackpilled" o
First, fair enough. It's fine to have ideas about your utopian world with no idea how to get there.
Second, no one has an obligation to answer my questions, so no worries there.
Third, I tend to ask questions about practical issues because I'm stuck with the world in which I live. But that's partly a function of personality and obviously not for everyone.
First, fair enough. It's fine to have ideas about your utopian world with no idea how to get there.
Second, no one has an obligation to answer my questions, so no worries there.
Third, I tend to ask questions about practical issues because I'm stuck with the world in which I live. But that's partly a function of personality and obviously not for everyone.
I give credit to ETC2 for acknowledging that his postings are not reality-based. I find that refreshing.
I'm fine and dandy like cotton candy with heavily taxing rich folks.
I was specifically opposing ETC2's belief that ALL of Bezos wealth should be confiscated:
My proposal was to leave him with 1 billion, so not 100%, but 99.6%. Would you be ok with that? The idea that anyone should ever have more than 1 billion dollars is patently absurd.
my proposal would be to leave him with nothing more than the head on his shoulders. but I could easily be convinced otherwise.
Jeff Bezos seems like one of the least likeable people on the planet, but for all the reasons I mentioned previously, I think a society that was truly committed to eliminating extreme wealth would focus on implementing changes that made it impossible for the next Jeff Bezos to arise rather than on implementing plans to seize the wealth of the existing Jeff Bezos.
As impossible as it seems, the wealth of the Bezos family is likely to dissipate very significantly over the next 100 years.
My proposal was to leave him with 1 billion, so not 100%, but 99.6%. Would you be ok with that? The idea that anyone should ever have more than 1 billion dollars is patently absurd.
It's crazy that people don't understand basic things.
A fundamental problem of society is who gets to allocate capital.
Socialism/Communism says the government does. Massive disaster unless the capital flows in from things like oil wealth (Norway, Dubai).
Capitalism says that the "person most efficient at meeting human wants, as decided on by voluntary spenders meeting their wants, gets to allocate capital".
We've run this experiment in dozens of countries for over a centuries. The second is proven to be a vastly superior method of improving economies and the fate of the poor. The end. It's settled science (not to mention foundational ecology).
You want to turn that all on its head for what? For envy? Stupidity? Child-level thinking ("billionaires have stuff and it's so wrong they have so much stuff when people have nothing!")?
The vast majority of the wealth of billionaires is the control of capital. In terms of consumption, billionaires are utterly irrelevant. In fact, they help the poor by NOT consuming or squandering their wealth, and keeping most of it in the form of highly productive capital intelligently deployed to meeting human wants.
99.9% of food is not consumed by billionaires. In fact, the biggest hit to food availability and cost is billions of ordinary people choosing red meat (vast forest destruction for beef)
99.9% of wood and minerals are not consumed by billionaires.
99.8% of fuel is not consumed by billionaires. It's consumed by cars, trucks, ships taking good across the world
On so on, forever.
Billionaires make no difference to the fate of the poor except to improve it. I don't know why you can't think from first principles and see that.
