3 ms·
The problem is that the realistic alternative is that there is effectively even more centralized wealth, or wealth control with governments. It would be neat i
by sien 9y ago
The problem is that the realistic alternative is that there is effectively even more centralized wealth, or wealth control with governments.
It would be neat if money was spread even more evenly. But the costs of the intervention to try and wangle it would probably outweigh the benefits.
That isn't to say that taxes shouldn't be higher or benefits higher. But even Sweden and France have billionaires. They just have their wealth in foundations and in Luxembourg.
- ant6n 9y ago> But even Sweden and France have billionaires. The problem is impossible to solve because those who are doing better than the US still have this problem?
- foxylad 9y ago> It would be neat if money was spread even more evenly. Change "neat" to "critical", and I'll agree with you. My gut feel is that the US is close to another revolution. All those less-educated white males with several automatic rifles each are not going to like it when they find out their beloved Donald (oh look, another billionaire solving hard problems!) makes their lot worse instead of better.
- zanny 9y agoPeople are mad, but they aren't mad at the powers that be, they are mad at arbitrary groups of "others" whom they dehumanize into a threat to their way of life. Its an intentional misdirection through disinformation, but rich and powerful men have been adept at it for centuries now, they learned well from the examples of the French, Bolshevik, and similar revolutions on how to make sure the impoverished masses are focusing their discontent on anyone but the ones truly responsible for their plight. If you wield power as long as you keep the poor fighting amongst themselves they can never organize against you. See how Occupy Wall Street fell apart through mostly infighting and misinformation as a simple example of this effect that isn't exactly contemporary.