6 ms·

>> The Republican party is the party of generational wealth transfer. >I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. They oppose estate or "death" taxes in gene

by mptest 2y ago

>> The Republican party is the party of generational wealth transfer. >I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. They oppose estate or "death" taxes in general. That is what they mean. >The Republican party is half the country. They're half of voters. They haven't won the popular vote in how many years? 40? They're an obnoxiously loud minority. >All of them? Probably not all, but nearly all. The maga tariffs and then subsequent bailouts of farmers harmed comes to mind. reagan's austerity is another easy example. >>Is the Culture War so important/motivating to these people that they are willing to help implement their own economic destruction? This is the culture war. >You're doing it right now. No, they aren't. The republicans bemoaning the 1% of people who identify as trans to distract their uneducated voters while banning books and attacking public education funding, libraries, women's rights, etc, are. Don't fall in to the bothersider ism trap. Look at republican policy in a red state like texas[0] to see why the comment you replied to is the truth. [0] https://www.chron.com/politics/article/texas-gop-2024-priorities-19503582.php https://www.chron.com/politics/article/texas-gop-2024-priori...

bequanna 2y ago
The estate tax doesn’t mean too much. “Generational wealth” is generally a myth. The second and third generations burn through any inheritance and sprint back to middle class rather quickly.
- gwd 2y ago
  > “Generational wealth” is generally a myth. The second and third generations burn through any inheritance and sprint back to middle class rather quickly. Ref? That was definitely not my impression from listening to "Capital in the 21st Century".
  - bequanna 2y ago
    Piketty is not my favorite. I consider him a pure academic who tends to cherry pick data. In reality, wealth tends to cluster around people who are good stewards of it. They allocate capital efficiently and we are all better off. The government is NOT a good steward of wealth. They allocate inefficiently (because no accountability) so we should minimize what we give them. Here is a quick and dirty reference discussing how lazy kids of rich people blow it: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/generational-wealth-curse-causing-90-152639070.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/generational-wealth-curse-cau...
    - elliotto 2y ago
      This is wild to disagree with Pikettys magnum opus with a reference to a yahoo finance news article
      - bequanna 2y ago
        The dude is a pure academic and just trying to sell socialism with hand waving. I look at it differently: His ideas are so weak and removed from reality that they can’t even stand up to a Yahoo Finance article. We should be careful taking policy advice from people who have never had real jobs.
        mptest 2y ago
        So teaching isn't a real job? Authoring books isn't a real job? Someone should probably tell a lot of people the bad news... >selling socialism with hand waving Lol, more like selling it with award winning, best selling, taught in colleges books? If you're convinced that's "hand waving" you're beyond lost
        elliotto 2y ago
        uhh not sure what constitues a real job if not an author, consultant and teacher (on top of being a successful academic). Have you read his book? It's quite good.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - gwd 2y ago
      > The government is NOT a good steward of wealth. They allocate inefficiently (because no accountability) so we should minimize what we give them. Have you ever actually looked at how large companies allocate wealth, and how much actual accountability there is there? I can't tell you how many billions of dollars the company I currently work for burned with acquisitions whose products they shut down and teams they laid off two years later; and they're definitely not worse than normal, as far as I can tell. How many products has Microsoft attempted and then killed? How big is the Killed By Google graveyard? And in many cases people who make catastrophic decisions are rewarded -- "failing up" with golden parachutes and higher more influential posts. In my experience, people who say things like this have a double standard. If you judge the government and corporations by the same standards, they come out about the same -- a bit of really good, a bit of really bad, lots of mediocre. The difference is that the government is at least nominally trying to work for the voters, whereas corporations are explicitly only working for their shareholders.
scrubadub 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mptest 2y ago
  They are fixing no problems. Before I get back to your comment, I have to ask. You earnestly believe the party voting for children to work longer hours, more dangerous jobs, the party ensuring rape victims and children give birth to their rapists' child and in general remove women's medical autonomy, on religious grounds in a constitutionally secular democracy, are the ones 'defending women'? Shocking position. They are encouraging ignorance and harassment. They are inspiring people like you to think there is any issue with trans people in the first place. You have been tricked in to thinking trans people are anything more than a mostly invisible minority. They lost the "gays and gay marriage is the devil" line and now have simply regressed to even weaker bigotry, the 1% or less I forget the exact % of people who are trans. They do not, nor has anyone, "demanded everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman". These labels, man and woman, are flexible social labels, not the rigorous biological category they've convinced simpletons to believe in as some sort of personal axiom.
  - scrubadub 2y ago
    I don't believe that either the Republicans or the Democrats are defending women, no. They're both patriarchal institutions that are misogynistic in different ways. > They do not, nor has anyone, "demanded everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman". Sorry but you have been misinformed, this is the currently the actual progressive position. And it has led to horrifying outcomes when enacted into law, such as SB132 in California which allows imprisoned men to transfer to the women's prisons if they claim to be women: https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-california-womens-prison-cdcr-confirms-pregnancy https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-... > These labels, man and woman, are flexible social labels, not the rigorous biological category they've convinced simpletons to believe in as some sort of personal axiom. No, what you're describing is a sexist redefinition of woman and man. There's really no need for it. It just reifies sex-role stereotypes.

by mptest 2y ago

bequanna 2y ago

The estate tax doesn’t mean too much. “Generational wealth” is generally a myth. The second and third generations burn through any inheritance and sprint back to middle class rather quickly.

gwd 2y ago
> “Generational wealth” is generally a myth. The second and third generations burn through any inheritance and sprint back to middle class rather quickly. Ref? That was definitely not my impression from listening to "Capital in the 21st Century".
- bequanna 2y ago
  Piketty is not my favorite. I consider him a pure academic who tends to cherry pick data. In reality, wealth tends to cluster around people who are good stewards of it. They allocate capital efficiently and we are all better off. The government is NOT a good steward of wealth. They allocate inefficiently (because no accountability) so we should minimize what we give them. Here is a quick and dirty reference discussing how lazy kids of rich people blow it: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/generational-wealth-curse-causing-90-152639070.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/generational-wealth-curse-cau...
  - elliotto 2y ago
    This is wild to disagree with Pikettys magnum opus with a reference to a yahoo finance news article
    - bequanna 2y ago
      The dude is a pure academic and just trying to sell socialism with hand waving. I look at it differently: His ideas are so weak and removed from reality that they can’t even stand up to a Yahoo Finance article. We should be careful taking policy advice from people who have never had real jobs.
      - mptest 2y ago
        So teaching isn't a real job? Authoring books isn't a real job? Someone should probably tell a lot of people the bad news... >selling socialism with hand waving Lol, more like selling it with award winning, best selling, taught in colleges books? If you're convinced that's "hand waving" you're beyond lost
      - elliotto 2y ago
        uhh not sure what constitues a real job if not an author, consultant and teacher (on top of being a successful academic). Have you read his book? It's quite good.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - gwd 2y ago
    > The government is NOT a good steward of wealth. They allocate inefficiently (because no accountability) so we should minimize what we give them. Have you ever actually looked at how large companies allocate wealth, and how much actual accountability there is there? I can't tell you how many billions of dollars the company I currently work for burned with acquisitions whose products they shut down and teams they laid off two years later; and they're definitely not worse than normal, as far as I can tell. How many products has Microsoft attempted and then killed? How big is the Killed By Google graveyard? And in many cases people who make catastrophic decisions are rewarded -- "failing up" with golden parachutes and higher more influential posts. In my experience, people who say things like this have a double standard. If you judge the government and corporations by the same standards, they come out about the same -- a bit of really good, a bit of really bad, lots of mediocre. The difference is that the government is at least nominally trying to work for the voters, whereas corporations are explicitly only working for their shareholders.

scrubadub 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mptest 2y ago
They are fixing no problems. Before I get back to your comment, I have to ask. You earnestly believe the party voting for children to work longer hours, more dangerous jobs, the party ensuring rape victims and children give birth to their rapists' child and in general remove women's medical autonomy, on religious grounds in a constitutionally secular democracy, are the ones 'defending women'? Shocking position. They are encouraging ignorance and harassment. They are inspiring people like you to think there is any issue with trans people in the first place. You have been tricked in to thinking trans people are anything more than a mostly invisible minority. They lost the "gays and gay marriage is the devil" line and now have simply regressed to even weaker bigotry, the 1% or less I forget the exact % of people who are trans. They do not, nor has anyone, "demanded everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman". These labels, man and woman, are flexible social labels, not the rigorous biological category they've convinced simpletons to believe in as some sort of personal axiom.
- scrubadub 2y ago
  I don't believe that either the Republicans or the Democrats are defending women, no. They're both patriarchal institutions that are misogynistic in different ways. > They do not, nor has anyone, "demanded everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman". Sorry but you have been misinformed, this is the currently the actual progressive position. And it has led to horrifying outcomes when enacted into law, such as SB132 in California which allows imprisoned men to transfer to the women's prisons if they claim to be women: https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-california-womens-prison-cdcr-confirms-pregnancy https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-... > These labels, man and woman, are flexible social labels, not the rigorous biological category they've convinced simpletons to believe in as some sort of personal axiom. No, what you're describing is a sexist redefinition of woman and man. There's really no need for it. It just reifies sex-role stereotypes.