3 ms·
I absolutely agree. In last night's debate, my son's stance was that financial transactions were win-lose, and that in order for the 1% to get rich, the 99% ha
by jerfelix 15y ago
I absolutely agree.
In last night's debate, my son's stance was that financial transactions were win-lose, and that in order for the 1% to get rich, the 99% had to be worse off. Therefore it is right to "penalize the 1%".
Louis CK seems to pose a counter-case to that logic. I'd argue that most, if not all, voluntary financial transactions are win-win. So "penalizing" is not appropriate. The 1% aren't inherently evil just because they are in the top 1%.
- tdoggette 15y agoI agree with you about most/all voluntary transactions being win-win (it seems almost tautological), but the question then becomes, "How many transactions involving both the very rich and the poor are truly voluntary and non-coercive?"
- roguecoder 15y agoThat's only true if the monetary supply remains tightly constrained. As long as we are willing to tolerate inflation the 1% can become richer and the 99% can also still have access to money. Otherwise, in order for the rich to accumulate more wealth, it has to come from somewhere.