5 ms·

Very good points. For the most part, the bottom 10% in most liberal democracies are much better off than most people in most autocratic states. Wealth inequal

by YZF 1y ago

Very good points. For the most part, the bottom 10% in most liberal democracies are much better off than most people in most autocratic states. Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population. Yet I saw a poster the other day titled "class warfare" with a picture of graveyard saying that's where the "rich" will be buried. People don't understand at all how counties and economies work and how this system we live in works vs. the alternatives (I'm in Canada btw).

skinnymuch 1y ago
Interesting how this is always about how liberal democracy (namely European supremacist nations like yours) who control the world as the global north and are the primary reasons for the “autocracy” I don’t know where you can even think the bottom 10% of the west/liberal democracies are better than “most” in those other countries. That’s a wild thing to think. Seems like typical western centrism and chauvinism.
- YZF 1y ago
  Let's look at one example. The average income in Egypt is ~$1900 USD a year (it's probably worse now but this is a number I've seen). Low income threshold in Canada is about $20k (EDIT: CAD) a year and that's about the bottom 10%. So not sure what your point is re: wild thing to think. Do you think the average Egyptian is better off than the low 10% Canadian? How is it that because liberal democracies "control the world" that Egypt is forced to be an autocracy? Do they have no agency? If Liberal democracies so control the world how come some countries have been able to do better (China e.g.)
  - noduerme 1y ago
    >> How is it that because liberal democracies "control the world" that Egypt is forced to be an autocracy? Do they have no agency? This is exactly how I would have responded to the above comment. I'd just add that there is tons of evidence for liberal democracies attempting to help or entice those countries to become less corrupt, more transparent and more democratic. Saying that countries that have been independent of colonial rule for a hundred years, which incidentally were mostly handed democratic systems, have become autocracies because of liberal democracies want them that way is sheer insanity. Your point about agency should be the standard rebuttal to all forms of third-worldism that attempt to blame homegrown problems on external actors. But having someone external to blame for homegrown repression isn't just post-hoc rationalization. It actually serves to reinforce the oppression in those states, both as a pressure-release valve for autocrats, and the failure to evaluate internal problems serves as an underlying reason why they have not successfully overthrown those regimes and transitioned to democracy. Mostly, though, that type of talk comes out of the mouths of Westerners who know nothing about the situation in, e.g. Egypt.
    - skinnymuch 1y ago
      Saying that your standard response is the standard response of any oppressor isn’t exactly illuminating. Literally the whitest man response possible. Your comment can be adjusted a bit and it would work for “do black men have no agency” contrasted with white people in a country like America. Or any number of other oppressive dynamics. — This all ignores that Egypt’s current regime right now is propped up by America.
TFYS 1y ago
> Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population. I think it does the opposite. Those services were mostly built during the last century after the war when conditions were just right for people to get those policies implemented. Since then the wealthy have mostly been lobbying against those services, dodging taxes, spreading propaganda justifying the inequality, etc. Now we're seeing the results of this work by the wealthy. I also think it's wrong to assume the wealthy are the creators of that wealth just because they have it. It can also be the result of using positions of power to get a larger share of a pie baked by a lot of people.
- YZF 1y ago
  This is factually not true. For example: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110005501 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=111000... The top 1% of highest income in Canada pays 21-22% of the taxes. Their share of the income is about 10%. So they "rich" are paying for services everyone else is getting. The top 10% pay 54% (!) of the taxes. Their share of income is about 34%. The top 0.1% pays about 8-9% of the taxes. So in Canada the rich are absolutely paying for the services everyone else gets. That's before accounting for their indirect contributions to the economy by running businesses, employing people, taxes paid by companies, etc. Maybe some random billionaire has some scheme that reduces their taxes. But most of the the rich pay way more taxes than others.
  - TFYS 1y ago
    I wouldn't call people working for a salary rich, which most of the people in those groups are. They pay plenty of taxes and many of them probably support funding public services as well. I meant the actually wealthy, who use their political power to reduce those services and the taxes they need to pay. They don't help fund them unless they are forced to, and currently they are not because the political power of their wealth has become larger than the political power of regular people.
    - YZF 1y ago
tossandthrow 1y ago
As sibling commentors say, this is just not true. As a society we have a capacity to work, and we divide that work using money. Your observation thst rich people pay for services is indicative of an oligarchy. When rich people pay, then it is not a plethora or small businesses, a democratic chooses government, or a consortium of investors bundling together to do something great. You are literally pointing out the failure of the west.
- YZF 1y ago
  I don't think so. This is the success of the west. It's the least worse of all the other alternatives. Which other option has worked out better for everyone? Oligarchy would be the rich controlling the countries in the west. Other than in people's imagination and conspiracies there is no evidence of that actually happening. Was Trump the favorite candidate of the rich in the US? I very much doubt it. Do the rich gain more influence with their money - sure. But not more influence then the rest of the population. The 99.9% have more influence than the 0.1% in aggregate. The west is the only place on this planet where the corrupt rich do not have absolute control (see Putin). Is it perfect, no? Is it better than those failed attempts to make everyone equal, strong yes. The top 0.1%, 1%, 10% are still a lot of people. This includes many successful small businesses, it includes large businesses, it includes many. Those people have varied opinions on how countries should be run, just like all of us. But they also have a vested interest in having a safe and free and well functioning society.

by YZF 1y ago

skinnymuch 1y ago

Interesting how this is always about how liberal democracy (namely European supremacist nations like yours) who control the world as the global north and are the primary reasons for the “autocracy” I don’t know where you can even think the bottom 10% of the west/liberal democracies are better than “most” in those other countries. That’s a wild thing to think. Seems like typical western centrism and chauvinism.

YZF 1y ago
Let's look at one example. The average income in Egypt is ~$1900 USD a year (it's probably worse now but this is a number I've seen). Low income threshold in Canada is about $20k (EDIT: CAD) a year and that's about the bottom 10%. So not sure what your point is re: wild thing to think. Do you think the average Egyptian is better off than the low 10% Canadian? How is it that because liberal democracies "control the world" that Egypt is forced to be an autocracy? Do they have no agency? If Liberal democracies so control the world how come some countries have been able to do better (China e.g.)
- noduerme 1y ago
  >> How is it that because liberal democracies "control the world" that Egypt is forced to be an autocracy? Do they have no agency? This is exactly how I would have responded to the above comment. I'd just add that there is tons of evidence for liberal democracies attempting to help or entice those countries to become less corrupt, more transparent and more democratic. Saying that countries that have been independent of colonial rule for a hundred years, which incidentally were mostly handed democratic systems, have become autocracies because of liberal democracies want them that way is sheer insanity. Your point about agency should be the standard rebuttal to all forms of third-worldism that attempt to blame homegrown problems on external actors. But having someone external to blame for homegrown repression isn't just post-hoc rationalization. It actually serves to reinforce the oppression in those states, both as a pressure-release valve for autocrats, and the failure to evaluate internal problems serves as an underlying reason why they have not successfully overthrown those regimes and transitioned to democracy. Mostly, though, that type of talk comes out of the mouths of Westerners who know nothing about the situation in, e.g. Egypt.
  - skinnymuch 1y ago
    Saying that your standard response is the standard response of any oppressor isn’t exactly illuminating. Literally the whitest man response possible. Your comment can be adjusted a bit and it would work for “do black men have no agency” contrasted with white people in a country like America. Or any number of other oppressive dynamics. — This all ignores that Egypt’s current regime right now is propped up by America.

TFYS 1y ago

> Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population. I think it does the opposite. Those services were mostly built during the last century after the war when conditions were just right for people to get those policies implemented. Since then the wealthy have mostly been lobbying against those services, dodging taxes, spreading propaganda justifying the inequality, etc. Now we're seeing the results of this work by the wealthy. I also think it's wrong to assume the wealthy are the creators of that wealth just because they have it. It can also be the result of using positions of power to get a larger share of a pie baked by a lot of people.

YZF 1y ago
This is factually not true. For example: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110005501 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=111000... The top 1% of highest income in Canada pays 21-22% of the taxes. Their share of the income is about 10%. So they "rich" are paying for services everyone else is getting. The top 10% pay 54% (!) of the taxes. Their share of income is about 34%. The top 0.1% pays about 8-9% of the taxes. So in Canada the rich are absolutely paying for the services everyone else gets. That's before accounting for their indirect contributions to the economy by running businesses, employing people, taxes paid by companies, etc. Maybe some random billionaire has some scheme that reduces their taxes. But most of the the rich pay way more taxes than others.
- TFYS 1y ago
  I wouldn't call people working for a salary rich, which most of the people in those groups are. They pay plenty of taxes and many of them probably support funding public services as well. I meant the actually wealthy, who use their political power to reduce those services and the taxes they need to pay. They don't help fund them unless they are forced to, and currently they are not because the political power of their wealth has become larger than the political power of regular people.
  - YZF 1y ago

tossandthrow 1y ago

As sibling commentors say, this is just not true. As a society we have a capacity to work, and we divide that work using money. Your observation thst rich people pay for services is indicative of an oligarchy. When rich people pay, then it is not a plethora or small businesses, a democratic chooses government, or a consortium of investors bundling together to do something great. You are literally pointing out the failure of the west.

YZF 1y ago
I don't think so. This is the success of the west. It's the least worse of all the other alternatives. Which other option has worked out better for everyone? Oligarchy would be the rich controlling the countries in the west. Other than in people's imagination and conspiracies there is no evidence of that actually happening. Was Trump the favorite candidate of the rich in the US? I very much doubt it. Do the rich gain more influence with their money - sure. But not more influence then the rest of the population. The 99.9% have more influence than the 0.1% in aggregate. The west is the only place on this planet where the corrupt rich do not have absolute control (see Putin). Is it perfect, no? Is it better than those failed attempts to make everyone equal, strong yes. The top 0.1%, 1%, 10% are still a lot of people. This includes many successful small businesses, it includes large businesses, it includes many. Those people have varied opinions on how countries should be run, just like all of us. But they also have a vested interest in having a safe and free and well functioning society.