extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.
Ooooooooo scary!
Totally the same thing as literally exterminating entire groups of people based on characteristics they were born with.
In all seriousness though, you should look at what Finland has done regarding “public housing,” and how great it has been for them. Spoiler alert, they’re actually really nice, and affordable. Because nobody is looking to maximize a profit.
But please, let me know how “Finland is much smaller than the US, therefore impossible.”
Well yes. They can go for it because they considering their size, they have a strong economy. They are literally the 3rd
most prosperous country in the world.
If you can afford it, go for it but firstly you need to make the money.
And how do you think they became prosperous? You have to give people the chance to spend money to have a growing economy, otherwise everyone’s keeping money for later and nothings flowing.
Because they have a strong service sector that produces revenue and also good high-technology manufacturing. You make money by producing revenue not from sponsoring everyone’s life. Sure, you can invest in people at the beginning but they need to start making money for your investment to pay off.
You make money by producing revenue not from sponsoring everyone’s life.
Nobody is “sponsoring” anybody’s life.
And you’re just wrong. “Producing revenue” helps corporations, it does nothing for 99.9% of American citizens. I can’t believe we still have to debunk this supply-side horse shit.
Over and over again, Scandinavian countries (and others) have shown us that, if you provide the very basics for human survival (e.g. shelter, health care, food) and perhaps some basic services needed for gainful employment like internet and public transportation, people are not only far happier and healthier, but they are also more productive members of society. It’s almost as if it’s nearly impossible to be productive when you are constantly stressed over the very basics for human survival. Wild.
There. Is. Literally. No. Down. Side. Unless. You. Are. A. Billionaire.
And even then… Oh no, you have to be a $100 millionaire instead of. $3 billionaire. How will you survive 🙄
First of all, everyone can gain from corporations’ successes
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha… that’s a good one dude. Didn’t expect such a laugh this early. No. Just no.
Supply-side economics (AKA trickle-down) does. not. work. Frankly, there is nothing you can say here that will counteract the decades of real world data we have to prove that no, lowering taxes for corporations absolutely DOES NOT help the working class. It does the exact opposite by enlarging the pay gap between the people who run the company, and the people who actually do the fucking work.
I’d like to believe you’re smarter than that…
Second of all, Scandinavian countries have quite a good model. However, they also have very strong economies to fund it.
True, you’d probably need to be maybe the most robust economy in the world to do that… Oh wait. That’s us…
First of all, you said regular people cannot benefit from companies’ growth, which is clearly false, because as per my previous reply, you can easily buy their stocks and become one of the shareholders. They even pay you dividends and your wealth grows.
Second issue you mentioned can be easily fixed by having competition in the market. When there are more companies, they have to improve conditions for workers, otherwise they will end up working for the competition. If no company in the market does it, thanks to capitalism you can start you own, offer the best conditions for your employees and they will come to you from the competition. Last but not least, whilst I agree lowering taxes does not necessarily mean rising people’s wages, it at least motivates people to start their own company (which creates more competition and that’s what we want). And yes, people who run the company are equally as important as the workers. It’s literally their responsibility to make decisions regarding the company’s direction. If you have a terrible management, the company goes bankrupt and workers, just like the people who run the company, lose their incomes.
With last statement I agree, US has the space to invest into free medicare, however at the cost of having less influence over the world.
lol yes ok very dangerous and equivalent to fascism understood
my opinion of centrists has completely flipped, I totally get why “spending too much” and “enforcing an ethnic hierarchy” are the same degree of evil
snark aside: you should reflect about what exactly money is, what it’s used for and what it represents, and how a government spending its own legal tender differs from household finances.
Usually the surreal ones such as extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.
Basically all actions that look very good on paper but at the same time are extremely expensive.
Ooooooooo scary!
Totally the same thing as literally exterminating entire groups of people based on characteristics they were born with.
In all seriousness though, you should look at what Finland has done regarding “public housing,” and how great it has been for them. Spoiler alert, they’re actually really nice, and affordable. Because nobody is looking to maximize a profit.
But please, let me know how “Finland is much smaller than the US, therefore impossible.”
Well yes. They can go for it because they considering their size, they have a strong economy. They are literally the 3rd most prosperous country in the world.
If you can afford it, go for it but firstly you need to make the money.
And how do you think they became prosperous? You have to give people the chance to spend money to have a growing economy, otherwise everyone’s keeping money for later and nothings flowing.
Because they have a strong service sector that produces revenue and also good high-technology manufacturing. You make money by producing revenue not from sponsoring everyone’s life. Sure, you can invest in people at the beginning but they need to start making money for your investment to pay off.
Nobody is “sponsoring” anybody’s life.
And you’re just wrong. “Producing revenue” helps corporations, it does nothing for 99.9% of American citizens. I can’t believe we still have to debunk this supply-side horse shit.
Over and over again, Scandinavian countries (and others) have shown us that, if you provide the very basics for human survival (e.g. shelter, health care, food) and perhaps some basic services needed for gainful employment like internet and public transportation, people are not only far happier and healthier, but they are also more productive members of society. It’s almost as if it’s nearly impossible to be productive when you are constantly stressed over the very basics for human survival. Wild.
There. Is. Literally. No. Down. Side. Unless. You. Are. A. Billionaire.
And even then… Oh no, you have to be a $100 millionaire instead of. $3 billionaire. How will you survive 🙄
First of all, everyone can gain from corporations’ successes. It literally takes 20 minutes to buy their stocks.
Second of all, Scandinavian countries have quite a good model. However, they also have very strong economies to fund it.
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha… that’s a good one dude. Didn’t expect such a laugh this early. No. Just no.
Supply-side economics (AKA trickle-down) does. not. work. Frankly, there is nothing you can say here that will counteract the decades of real world data we have to prove that no, lowering taxes for corporations absolutely DOES NOT help the working class. It does the exact opposite by enlarging the pay gap between the people who run the company, and the people who actually do the fucking work.
I’d like to believe you’re smarter than that…
True, you’d probably need to be maybe the most robust economy in the world to do that… Oh wait. That’s us…
First of all, you said regular people cannot benefit from companies’ growth, which is clearly false, because as per my previous reply, you can easily buy their stocks and become one of the shareholders. They even pay you dividends and your wealth grows.
Second issue you mentioned can be easily fixed by having competition in the market. When there are more companies, they have to improve conditions for workers, otherwise they will end up working for the competition. If no company in the market does it, thanks to capitalism you can start you own, offer the best conditions for your employees and they will come to you from the competition. Last but not least, whilst I agree lowering taxes does not necessarily mean rising people’s wages, it at least motivates people to start their own company (which creates more competition and that’s what we want). And yes, people who run the company are equally as important as the workers. It’s literally their responsibility to make decisions regarding the company’s direction. If you have a terrible management, the company goes bankrupt and workers, just like the people who run the company, lose their incomes.
With last statement I agree, US has the space to invest into free medicare, however at the cost of having less influence over the world.
You view those as similar in extremism to Nazis? That’s a self report right there.
I would say nazis and communists are equally as bad and equally as dangerous.
I’m gonna go ahead and say you are not a member of any group targeted by the Holocaust then.
My great grandfather was in a concentration camp.
I would rather say your ancestors never lived in a communist country.
lol yes ok very dangerous and equivalent to fascism understood
my opinion of centrists has completely flipped, I totally get why “spending too much” and “enforcing an ethnic hierarchy” are the same degree of evil
snark aside: you should reflect about what exactly money is, what it’s used for and what it represents, and how a government spending its own legal tender differs from household finances.
do you even hear yourself jfc