top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 118 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (25 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 35 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 2 years 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • [–] 69 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    surges

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 44 points 2 years 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

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 2 years 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!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 20 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • [+] 19 points 2 years ago (4 children)
    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Is anything ever going to happen though?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

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

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›