this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1020 points (97.6% liked)

World News

38550 readers
2937 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 116 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Trickle down never worked, this is end game capitalism, something else needs to be added to this mix to fix this mess.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 70 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Capitalism naturally ends up in this position. That's why it's so hard to "fix" -- to those at the top, nothing is wrong.

[–] Qualanqui@lemmy.nz 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exactly, capitalism is economic perpetual motion, you can't have exponential growth in a finite system.

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I might be wrong, but I think you mean infinite growth in a finite system.

You can have exponential growth in a finite system can't you? As exponential is just that it gets faster and faster compared to linearly increasing variables.

I guess at some point growth has to stop being exponential in a finite system, but the same can be argued for linear growth I think.

[–] elegantgoat1@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah I agree. It's still called exponential growth, even if it's temporary.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago

Yes. Simple math.

And yet you already got a downvote for it.

[–] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not regulated properly, that's the problem

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 27 points 1 year ago (26 children)

But those regulations are constantly labeled as "anticapitalist" -- because they are.

Why is it so wrong to poke at the inner workings of capitalism? Why must it be infallible?

[–] BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the people benefiting from its brokenness aren't ready to stop salting the earth for numbers.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...I think you may have misread my comment.

I'm saying it's broken and asking why it should be accepted as infallible.

[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought they were just agreeing with you, FWIW

[–] BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

You're right - but I can see how the tone was interpreted as oppositional, I could have worded it differently to direct that more clearly. No harm afaik, lol.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

You have been banned from c/Conservative.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Capitalism is, ultimately, a variant of the Pirate Game, which has some spectacularly unintuitive results.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Of course, unfortunately, replace the word "capitalism" with pretty much every at scale economic "system", and you get similar results: some group granted authority and power over the rest and "everythings fine" even when they are not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Trickle down didn't work in the 1980's or anytime after that.

Trickle down did work in the 1940's, 1950's, and most of the 1960's, it just wasn't called "trickle down" at that time.

The difference was a punitively high tax rate that nobody actually paid, because they found better ways to spend their excess revenue than simply giving it to Uncle Sam.

It turns out that when the richest among us are forced to spend instead of lend, the rest of us finally start to earn fair wages.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Well, that's not really "trickle down" as championed by Reagan, that's more "use it or lose it". He wanted to reduce those crazy high tax rates to give the rich the choice of whether to keep the money for later or to spend it now, with "trickle down" being the phrase to tell people that it's fine, it'll make it's way out to everyone else... eventually?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

something else needs to be added to this mix to fix this mess

Could Universal Basic Income play a role in this?

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Band aid solution. The system remains unchanged. The billionaires still make their profits off of the backs of you and me.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well there was this guy called Karl Marx, who tried to suggest solutions to the problems of capitalism.

...but I hear he's not trending these days. Wrong kind of people liked his stuff.

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Actually socialism is more popular now than ever. Enough that mainstream media constantly writes scare articles about how socialist the young generations are.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The media thinking they can threaten me with a good time...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There was a "this day in history" tidbit a day or two because it was the anniversary of the last guillotine execution.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The last so far.

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is where it's time to revisit why and how the economy fared so well in the USA when high top marginal tax rates incentivized top earners (and business owners) to spend on things that got them something when the alternative was paying 90% on money above the line to be in that bracket.

When that money was spent on higher wages or hiring more people or funding pensions or on research & development, the result was growth and a prosperous middle class. The super-wealthy were still super-wealthy, the major difference was that high top marginal tax rates created incentives for them to spend their money in ways that actually did trickle down

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Indeed, "use it or lose it" versus "keep it and we presume you might use it... one day"

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

surges

Forgive me if I wait for changes before believing anything is happening. Shit surged a long time ago.

[–] bobman@unilem.org 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Covid facilitated the greatest transfer of wealth from the masses to the few in human history.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let’s set aside all moral debates about freedom, punishing prosperity, blah blah blah.

There is one very simple and practical reason to tax the rich:

because that’s where all the money is

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

74% of it, in fact, concentrated into the hands of the wealthiest 10% of Americans.

If we don't tax the rich, they will only continue to get richer while everybody else gets poorer and the economy continues to fall apart as we print more and more money to keep everybody paid and it all gets vacuumed up to the top.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It seems like solid economics. We need to keep capital in motion. 10% of the population cannot meaningfully deploy 74% of the capital.

To quote the 1985 movie Brewster’s Millions, it doesn’t count to buy the Hope Diamond for some bimbo as a birthday present.

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Conversely there is one simple reason why politicians who hope to get re-elected will never tax the rich.

Because that is where all the money is

Get the special interests and money out of politics and we may have a chance of taxing them.

[–] Saneless@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And the people who don't have any money keep voting for the people who are the worst about this

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We're seeing so many economic problems being caused too much wealth being concentrated. Supply side economics was a stupid idea from the outset, but now we're in the supply side economics endgame.

The wealthy are using that wealth to make products no one needs while people are struggling to afford the things they actually do need. $3500 for Apple goggles? We don't need that and couldn't afford it if we did. How about yet another streaming service? Don't need it, can't afford it. Maybe some VR goggles the you can use to go into a virtual world where you're a legless cartoon character? We'll rename the company after this new product, that'll get people to buy it for sure!

Well shit, it seems the wealthy have so much money, they don't have anywhere to put it. Doesn't seem like enough people are buying the products they develop with that wealth, so what can they invest that money in? I know, maybe they should put it into real estate! Great, now ordinary people can't afford a place to live. Yay, supply side economics is working great!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 20 points 1 year ago

This is one of the main factors behind my vote this year.

That, free dental, and also keeping the ocean from getting too close to my house.

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is anything ever going to happen though?

[–] Saneless@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

Sure, once the people who have their entire campaign funded by these rich people vote on our behalf

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

The calls are growing up so fast, like weeds. /s

load more comments
view more: next ›