ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-ov...
Top donors from biggest 25
16 Republican (including the top 5)
6 Dem
And no Soros
Check 2020 and 2022. Ofc soros at this point is gone, the heir will decide and they are passing the baton right now
Wealth inequality is a heuristic but it’s not the end all be all. We could all be living in paradise but if one person has all the money then it will look like a really bad society on wealth inequality grounds. We also have to look at quality of life and whether people have the ability to meet their needs and desires.
A society where everyone is poor and there is not rich people because the government takes all their money as soon as they hi
We lived with far greater wealth inequality for basically all of human history, in all societies, EXCEPT 1950-1980 in some countries
if you understand that billionaires want different things when donating to different parties, why can’t you understand that they want different things when voting for the same party? you really don’t understand the game if you don’t understand big tent two party politics.
I actually do understand that (aside for a few things) they donate to different parties because they have differnt values/preferences.
Which is why i can actually appreciate billionaires which have values similar to mine
We lived with far greater wealth inequality for basically all of human history, in all societies, EXCEPT 1950-1980 in some countries
lol not even close to how we live now. maybe 1990s because of the end of the cold war and booming economies, but nowadays we are waaaaay better off in Western countries.
I actually do understand that (aside for a few things) they donate to different parties because they have differnt values/preferences.
Which is why i can actually appreciate billionaires which have values similar to mine
No I said they donate to the SAME party for different reasons. Specifically in the context of a two party system.
We lived with far greater wealth inequality for basically all of human history, in all societies, EXCEPT 1950-1980 in some countries
They called it the golden age of capitalism didn’t they ?
And how low was the taxing model back then ?
And what was the unions % ?
How much was the CEO salaries compared to a regular workers ?
Was buybacks legal ? (Strangely it became legal again in 1982 when everything start going to $h!t…😉
Seem at that time all those metrics were in the sweet spot of optimal profitable economies and diametrically opposite of what you and republicans believe it should be ….
lol not even close to how we live now. maybe 1990s because of the end of the cold war and booming economies, but nowadays we are waaaaay better off in Western countries.
Technology keeps improving so material prosperity for everyone should improve with tiem, if nothing happens. That's the rational expectation.
Politics sometimes get worse so even with exceptionally better technology, we are only "somewhat better off", which means politics is slowing us down, damaging us
Technology keeps improving so material prosperity for everyone should improve with tiem, if nothing happens. That's the rational expectation.
Politics sometimes get worse so even with exceptionally better technology, we are only "somewhat better off", which means politics is slowing us down, damaging us
Or people just really suck at evaluating the past and love to complain about everything despite how awesome capitalism and America is.
I misread Luciom's post and thought he was talking about just wealth in general being better during 1950s-1980s lol disregard my two previous posts as I don't think we were disagreeing.
They called it the golden age of capitalism didn’t they ?
And how low was the taxing model back then ?
And what was the unions % ?
How much was the CEO salaries compared to a regular workers ?
Was buybacks legal ? (Strangely it became legal again in 1982 when everything start going to $h!t…)
Seem at that time all those metrics were in the sweet spot of optimal profitable economies and diametrically opposite of what you and republicans believ
Exactly... find me a thriving right-wing economy in modern history. Everywhere current libertarian conservative ideology is tried, it fails. We have lots of recent examples, even in America:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/kansas-pro...
The deep income cuts that Kansas enacted in 2012 and 2013 for many business owners and other high-income Kansans failed to achieve their goal of boosting business formation and job creation, and lawmakers substantially repealed the tax cuts earlier this year. Former supporters have offered explanations for this failure to prevent the Kansas experience from discrediting “supply-side” economic strategies more broadly. But the evidence does not support these explanations. Rather, the Kansas experience adds to the already compelling evidence that cutting taxes does not improve state economic performance.
And let's ignore all the success of Scandinavian countries, that have followed an increasingly similar model over the years.
Not in modern history, unless you want to go back to the feudal ages.
There's pretty easy charts to look up about this.
Wealth and income inequality in 1920 was a lot higher than today, and it was every single year before that in every country worldwide basically (maybe use 1917 for russia).
Technology improves. Everything becomes cheaper to produce. Yet everything becomes more expensive.
Not everything in real terms at all no. Light is infinitely cheaper than 300 years ago. Instant long distance communication is as well. And many other things are far cheaper.
You can buy a lot more with one hour of work at median wage than before, for most things. Not all things though
Exactly... find me a thriving right-wing economy in modern history. Everywhere current libertarian conservative ideology is tried, it fails. We have lots of recent examples, even in America:
Chile is the richest per capita country in south american after we genocided the communists there, proof enough?
Not everything in real terms at all no. Light is infinitely cheaper than 300 years ago. Instant long distance communication is as well. And many other things are far cheaper.
You can buy a lot more with one hour of work at median wage than before, for most things. Not all things though
Yes, everything overstatement.
Candy more $
Jug of milk more $
Loaf of bread
Cigarettes
...
cigarettes are taxed on purpose to be more expensive, nothing to do with what we are talking about, the state decided you shouldn't afford them.
Loaf of bread, candy and jug of milk, i am pretty sure you are wrong you could buy more in weight with a hour at median wage in 1920 than today. I am actually pretty sure you can buy a lot more today, just check
1) not sure if true or not
2) why are you adding median wage to the discussion?
Fact of the matter is the vast majority of things are substantially more expensive now than in 1920, or at any point in time.
1) not sure if true or not
2) why are you adding median wage to the discussion?
Fact of the matter is the vast majority of things are substantially more expensive now than in 1920, or at any point in time.
A thing is more expensive if normal people have to work longer to afford it. That's the measure. You a random, normal person in the most normal job in society. How many minutes of your work are needed to buy X? if that goes up, things are getting worse for normal people, otherwise, things are getting better for normal people.
If the "real price" of everything goes 2x but a ****ing normal person with nothing special in his life doing random jobs that normal people can do earns 4x, things are better for normal people
Yes but 2x worse for the poor. And for anyone with $ in a bank account or under their mattress.
Wealth and income inequality in 1920 was a lot higher than today, and it was every single year before that in every country worldwide basically (maybe use 1917 for russia).
Yes, it was quite close. And what were the economic conditions then, and what caused the economic collapses?
Emmanuel Saez has done some excellent work on this topic using tax record histories over the years. I know he's written a few books on the subject w/ another partner.
in the roman times people had private armies
many of the invasions "on behalf of rome" were private enterprises
then don't forget the various east india companies
Yes but 2x worse for the poor. And for anyone with $ in a bank account or under their mattress.
If you have 0 money prices are irrelevant, you can't afford anything either way.
If you are a working poor maybe median wage is irrelevant, do min wage, still a lot better than in 1920.
If you keep $ under the mattress you are ******ed, keep them in a monetary fund at 0.05% expense ratio and earn the central bank rates
Chile is the richest per capita country in south american after we genocided the communists there, proof enough?
lol... this is pretty funny. I'm sure you had to really search for that one. Ty for the laugh. Pinochet would be rolling over in his grave. But yes, they are privatizing everything, and the IMF has been having great fun out there.
Guess what else is happening? Rapid economic inequality. All prices of previously publically funded industries like education, health care, etc... have been skyrocketing.
Your economic model doesn't work... at least not for most people. You've been conned. I can point to many liberal economies in the world that are highly successful.
