3 ms·
I cannot entertain any arguments besides rich vs poor when we have arguably the worst income inequality ever. Not that there aren't problems with the "bureaucra
by MarcelOlsz 2y ago
I cannot entertain any arguments besides rich vs poor when we have arguably the worst income inequality ever. Not that there aren't problems with the "bureaucracy" you mention, but fundamentally these are your friends and coworkers, while billionaires are not. I think your priorities are inverted.
It is always about rich vs poor first because we live in a material world. Everything else is secondary and downstream. I think the wool has been pulled over your eyes by rich con men.
Fundamentally doomed arguing within the existing status quo when we should be moving towards something different entirely seeing as capitalism has served its purpose of seeding the economy ages ago, and now we are 'over the hump' so to speak as we watch wealth concentrate further and its effects.
So long as we live inside a permanent growth mindset anything and everything will be doomed. It makes no sense to live in a system that still rewards rarity rather than celebrating ubiquity, which we cannot escape if the resources we've been seeded with continue to concentrate.
It is and has always been labour vs capital.
- atmavatar 2y ago> capitalism has served its purpose of seeding the economy ages ago, and now we are 'over the hump' so to speak as we watch wealth concentrate further and its effects. I think capitalism as a system is capable of serving the general public. The bigger problem has been that every Republican administration in my lifetime has passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and both parties have allowed significant consolidation while also falling all over themselves to bail out big business whenever they got in trouble (often due to their own irresponsibility) while wagging their fingers at regular people suffering the downstream effects.