3 ms·
And the executives do this in a golden shower of trickle-on economics. ...which didn't work so well during the Reagan administration, but I guess we're on cour
by ssl-3 8mo ago
And the executives do this in a golden shower of trickle-on economics.
...which didn't work so well during the Reagan administration, but I guess we're on course to try it again.
- WalterBright 8mo agoNo country has ever raised up poor people by eviscerating the wealthy.
- r14c 8mo agoIsn't that exactly how the USSR became a global superpower?
- synecdoche 8mo agoNo, the poor stayed poor or even worse, starved to death. USSR self imploded.
- r14c 8mo agoWasn't it like a surreally peaceful dissolution?
- dh2022 8mo agoSoviet people’s standard of living was way below Western standards. Stalin took Russia out of the Middle Ages and into the w0th century at the cost of millions and millions of Russian luves.
- bcrosby95 8mo agoRight, because the wealthy were eviscerated before horse and sparrow economics.
- wwweston 8mo agoThe Nordic model does a great job of providing a poor-raising floor (which also launches entrepreneurs at a higher success rate than in the US). And Norway in particular seems to have figured out how to take commons resources and turn them into common wealth while industry retains profit incentives. No one is “eviscerated.” And it’s disingenuous to use that term for any proposal that has even the slightest public traction in the US. The most extreme proposals require single digit taxes on hyperwealth which might not have impact beyond stabilizing it and certainly wouldn’t make anyone not-wealthy. No one is talking about eviscerating the wealthy. Yet. But if we pretend the only options are (a) unencumbered hyperwealth with attendant hyper income inequality and (b) eviscerating the wealthy for long enough, it’s more likely some people will eventually embrace the latter. And this is particularly relevant for the age of LLMs. None of them approach intelligence with reliance on a huge data commons (and likely even data that isn’t intended for the commons) they’re an enterprise with a natural arrow from the commons to the common wealth, if we can remember a culture that sustains it.
- WalterBright 8mo agoThe Nordic model depends on sitting on an ocean of oil. > No one is talking about eviscerating the wealthy. See Bernie Sanders! Also, if you die in Washington State, your estate is taxed at 75% (40% federal, 35% state).
- dh2022 8mo agoMaybe you should choose your words more carefully, Walter Bright. To eviscerate means to disembowel. Nobody is pushing to physically hurt the rich. But people are upset that their standards of living are declining while every opportunity to give more money to the rich is executed. Bernie Sanders asked for taxing the rich and the corporations. Taxing someone does not mean disembowel.
- WalterBright 8mo agoI know what the word means, and I am sure you understand it is not meant to be taken literally. For example, do you remember when AOC proudly wore a dress with the words "Eat the rich" emblazoned on it? Nobody accused her of suggesting cannibalism. Bernie Sanders has frequently stated that billionaires should not exist. He used to excoriate millionaires, until he became one himself.