220
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I’ve never claimed anything of the kind.

Still, that more and more of the world’s income and wealth are concentrated with just a few rich people

This is you making that claim.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

No. Back when all wealth was physically represented like the caricature your strawman is claiming, wealth and income concentration and inequality was much less severe than it is now. That you can't differentiate between the hoard of Smaug and the hoard of Musk isn't my fault.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

That you can’t differentiate between the hoard of Smaug and the hoard of Musk isn’t my fault.

This isn't how wealth works, so I'm pretty good at differentiating between them.

Did you mean to say "if I can't see the similarities between them?" You'd still be just as incorrect, factually, but the sentence would make more sense.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be physical hoarding to be hoarding and detrimental to the rest of society.

For example, wealth that stays with the bottom 90% wealth-wise circulate throughout society, benefiting everyone.

Conversely, once it reaches the 10% wealthiest people, the vast majority goes towards nothing but accumulation of more wealth for the top 10%, effectively removing it from the larger economy and thus making the 90% poorer.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Conversely, once it reaches the 10% wealthiest people, the vast majority goes towards nothing but accumulation of more wealth for the top 10%

How?

Through investment. Meaning it is back circulating.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

No. The top 10% aren't giving money to help mom and pop businesses, they are buying stocks, the vast majority of which they own , removing that wealth from the larger economy, as I was saying.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That's, by definition, not removing wealth from the economy.

What if I told you that you could support taxing wealthy people more and know how basic facts of the economy work.

Personally I'm for dramatic progressive tax increases on the top 3 quintiles. That doesn't change basic facts.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That's, by definition, not removing wealth from the economy.

It is when there's such a disconnect that there's two economies: the one of most of society, in which money circulates and then most of it rises to the second one, the one of the top 10% where almost none of it finds its way down.

It's kinda like a 16 lane highway going one direction and an overgrown footpath with bear traps in the other direction.

What if I told you that you could support taxing wealthy people more and know how basic facts of the economy work.

With you on the first part, way ahead of you on the other.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

To quote a self-aware billionaire:

I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don’t buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my “manager pants.” I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn’t do the country much good.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Well I guess not everyone is good with money, but this is hardly an exception that invalidates anything.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

He's not an exception, you utter buffoon, he's the rule! 🤦

One of these days I'm gonna learn to just leave it alone when I see your username or just block your Dunning Kruger poster boy ass. This is somewhere between the 3rd and 5th argument we've had in the last 5 or so months and you've been arrogantly obtuse every single time 😮‍💨

[-] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
220 points (83.5% liked)

politics

19089 readers
1435 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS