5 ms·
Perhaps you should consider that maybe some of those shareholders are your parents whose retirement future depends on those investments?
by Varqu 4y ago
Perhaps you should consider that maybe some of those shareholders are your parents whose retirement future depends on those investments?
- mantas 4y agoHow much of that money is made by externalising costs to the society? Limiting cross-borders money flow is a very good way to keep social contract intact.
- Varqu 4y agoSo basically, let's keep buying our average quality cars for more money, than allow free trade & importing better quality vehicles from a country that specializes with it? For some reason, it was the growth of global trade that coincided with the growth of global GDP & the increase of the life quality of the earth population.
- mantas 4y agoTax the shit out of imported cars and make sure that local makers actually compete. It's funny how people cry about CO2 and whatnot. But when it's about trade, suddenly transporting stuff thousands of kilometers is fiiiine.
- AdrianB1 4y agoGlobalism is coming from the same people that also want open borders for immigration. Should borders be open or closed? (European here, I have no stance on that, Amazon has no retail presence in my country and immigration is almost zero here)
- mantas 4y agoClosed, of course (european too). It destroys capitalist job market by kicking out floor from workers. People ain't willing to do a job for peanuts? How about raising a salary (and automation becoming feasible)? Nah, let's important people who will work for less.
- 9dev 4y agoPerhaps your parents shouldn’t have built their retirement future on the ongoing exploitation of lower class people? Might there be a systemic issue here?
- makomk 4y agoAny kind of retirement future is fundamentally built on the labour of the still-active workforce, and will be for as long as labour is still required in order to produce goods and services. That's just inherent to the concept of retirement itself, no matter how that retirement appears to be funded - those retired people still need to consume stuff that requires workers to produce and they're not working themselves by definition. Every single retiree is taking a cut of the labour productivity of those still working whilst not returning anything, whether that's funded via shareholdings in their pension plan or a state pension scheme or any other form of pension. More subtly, in the current economy there are basically only two pots that higher real-terms wages for workers can come from: taking from other workers, and taking from the retired. That's because the whole economy has a supply-side crisis in basically everything and does not have the capacity to supply people overall with any more than they already have. All the usual scapegoats, like the super-wealthy, just don't consume enough as a proportion of the global economy that redistributing from them would have an impact on ordinary people. (Often articles attempt to confuse people about this by using definitions of wealthy that include like a third of the US population, or by comparing net worth instead and tricking people into thinking it means consumption by ordinary people could be increased by that amount if it was redistributed.)