cloudfifty

9 ms·

31.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> That is just Marxist pseudoscience to pathologize success That's not a serious way to argue at all. That is just emotional dogma that criticism can ultimately be traced to envy. > The amount that people toil has decreased large
32.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
This flow seem very convenient for the extremely rich: 1. Milk as much taxpayer money as possible, while providing as little as possible through profit-driven social services etc. that require increasingly larger budgets to not collapse ent
33.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> I provided a source to the data. No you haven't. Just a figure and your own interpretation of it. > which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model. No, it doesn't. It's exactly t
34.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Still no sources. Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative. > which are appeals to emotion that are without substance No, they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim which obviously would be mor
35.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Please focus on providing those sources rather than trying to derail with tone policing. To reiterate: If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, e
36.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
That entire reply is totally devoid of any substance whatsoever. I assume you're not planning to provide any reputable source, just keep repeating your own authoritative assertion like your last sentence? > It's undeniable that
37.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Just like the old days huh? The "It's Marxism!" signs are still not that far away are they now?
38.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending. No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased in
39.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. You have provided none. Where's the reputable source that can back up your claims with more than just an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure? >
40.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> What happens to the other people, the people you won't pay for? Not sure what your point is. All who qualifies is paid for? If you don't qualify you can take classes to make you qualify, also at no cost.
41.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> The Western states have been embracing social democracy No, they haven't. Stop peddling this obvious bullshit based on a single figure stretched all the way to the moon. Social spending != social democracy. Social spending != welf
42.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Do you want to go back to the times of property qualifications?
43.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
China and free market mumbling to avoid a simple accountability comparison? Come on. Your just flailing about to keep some neat image of Capitalism intact at this point. The only thing this had to do with is what incentive structure each se
44.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
That's like saying that a Leninist system stops being Leninist when its vanguard inevitably becomes corrupted, because its vanilla state is - in theory - democratic. But that's ridiculous, each system should be held accountable fo
45.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
I did not misunderstand you. The suggested changes are bullshit.
46.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> This is an absolutist fallacy. Why? You haven't really answered anything with regards to the incentive structure of Capitalism to manipulate the market ASAP. What good "free markets" segments of society even exists today
47.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
I did not.
48.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
You're missing the forest for the trees. This is what Capitalism has always been and always will be due to its incentive structure. If you accept wealth and thus power concentration, you accept market manipulation. The corps won't
49.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Sit tight and assess! This is like reading a propaganda pamphlet with the inevitable very long term "it may work, we'll have to wait and see in a decade or two, but until then at least our profits are not affected"-solutions.
50.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Why wouldn't a capitalist corporation choose to lobby the government to bend the rules in their favor if they think that that would give the best ROI? In what version of Capitalism would this not happen? What would remove this incent
51.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> Your country does. What do you mean by can't go? People "can't" go to high-school either if they don't get the minimum grades required in elementary school. How does this even relate to the money angle that I&#
52.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> That implies that folks who don't qualify don't get to go Well, yes, of course? Why wouldn't both the uni and students want a threshold to ensure that no one's time is being wasted? But this doesn't mean that p
53.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
So the idea is to keep the wealth/power concentration of today and hope that they will comply with a land value tax and stop trying to use their power to bend the rules? I'm sorry but that is even more naive than an old-school aut
54.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
So you just add a tax on land ownership and do nothing about wealth concentration - and thus power concentration - and think it will magically work out? Those rich powerful folks are now just going to stop attempting to bend the rules in th
55.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Are you not prioritized according to wealth if you can pay to skip the queue? Or as in the US, to require payment to even be in the queue.
56.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Are you implying that a negative trade off is that you're not prioritized according to wealth?
57.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Noticed how rare it is too see libertarians promote some sort of "Great Reset"? That is, to make sure that people in their new "fair & meritocratic" system don't get a head start by wealth accumulated under the
58.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> In other words, you tell people "no, you don't get to go to college/university". Why would you say that? > And yes, there are free and/or very low-cost colleges in the US. ( https://www.sjcc.edu&#x
59.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> And how many people get to go? All who qualifies through grades or tests. > And who chooses which majors are available? The universities. > If you have a pulse, you can get into a US college/university. That doesn't see
60.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Alright, so let's try a few of points to clarify. Do you support any of the following? * Universal healthcare. * 4 or more weeks of paid vacation per year for all full-time employees (and some proportional setup for part-time). * ~6 mo

More ›