118 points

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

permalink
report
reply
69 points
*

Capitalism naturally ends up in this position. That’s why it’s so hard to “fix” – to those at the top, nothing is wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yes. Simple math.

And yet you already got a downvote for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You have been banned from c/Conservative.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You just described all major human societies over the ages. The issue is corruption and exploitation regardless of the core sociopolitical idealogy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, that and the “rising tide lifts all boats”. He neglected to consider that most of us had “run aground” between the 60’s and 80’s.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

It only worked for white people, not people of color

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

People of color were certainly repressed during this time frame, but not because of punitive tax rates on the highest incomes.

I can’t think of any mechanism wherein people of color in the 1940s through the mid 1960s would have been better off if rich people were taxed lower. So, I would have to disagree with your assessment: The confiscatory top-tier tax rate did, indeed, benefit people of color, just not nearly enough to offset the harms of legislated segregation and institutional racism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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

Could Universal Basic Income play a role in this?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

UBI wouldn’t aim to get rid of billionaires since they would also receive payments. But it would help get rid of poverty, no?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Well at least after AI and robots replace a good portion of the workforce, detaching happy, educated citizens from the societies money flow.

My guess is gouverment by powerful corporation and people unable to adapt dying in gutters, rather that universal income.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The last so far.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

“Socialism” in the form of government regulations and healthcare is popular. Not so much Marxism or proleterian revolution

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Socialism isn’t, but “SociALiSm” is.

Taxing people and providing social services is not Socialism. It’s capitalism and good governance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
69 points

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

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Indeed, “use it or lose it” versus “keep it and we presume you might use it… one day”

permalink
report
parent
reply
48 points

surges

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

permalink
report
reply
3 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Ehhh Colonialist Spain would likely have a few choice words about that

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Globally? Or just them?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They’re just getting the message, now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

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

permalink
report
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

The people who don’t have any money can’t vote for anybody who is good about this because that’s how it’s designed. It’s not our fucking fault.

I mean it is; that we haven’t taken power directly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

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!

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Isn’t the usefulness of ventures rewarded or not by the efficient market? I really like VR. An emerging market like that is bound to have some design dead ends and wasted money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What efficient market?

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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/

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 261K

    Comments