3 ms·
If love to see supporting long term evidence for this (ie, not just localized "see, stonks went up in the 90s"). If you think about it, it is clear that what y
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
If love to see supporting long term evidence for this (ie, not just localized "see, stonks went up in the 90s").
If you think about it, it is clear that what you propose is not sustainable as there is a forced constant push on the spending distribution.
It will fail.
- azan_ 2mo ago> If love to see supporting long term evidence for this (ie, not just localized "see, stonks went up in the 90s"). For what exactly, for growth? https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8yG0N6HnOy8g/8357a2ca-8463-4f53-b717-14298defc200/w=1620 https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8... here
- tossandthrow 2mo agoThat increasing inequality is generally preferable for everybody.
- azan_ 2mo agoBut that's not what I said.
- tossandthrow 2mo agoThat is literally what you said > large growth but largest in top decile vs no growth, the first one is absolutely 1000x times better