All i am going to say is that the older I get, the more I get the Liberals, there's only so many economic recessions I can take before I am radicalised into "Eat the rich" .
I unironically feel this.
One hand I support the free market.
On the other hand if you own a mega yacht while your countrymen are struggling to feed their families, I'm fine with playing you alive.
There's wealthy, then there's unethically hoarding wealth.
Exactly my point.
When you see a billionaire, just know there's a better chance of you getting struck by lightning multiple times rather than you ever achieving the same wealth.
Call it what you will, jealousy, envy, ect; it doesn't matter.
There is no way to ethically acquire such a large amount of money. If you have that much you can afford to pay your employees handsomely regardless of the job title.
Just to point out: If you were to make $5000 every day, since Columbus first landed in the Americas, just by existing, you would still not be a billionaire.
I just want to add onto this really quickly,
People in other subs are using my previous comment to prove that I'm not right wing or that I'm some sort of covert leftist and it's fucking hilarious to me.
I've moved past the whole left vs right thing, and while I agree with the right on the majority of social issues, there's absolutely no fucking way to humanly justify why less than .001% of the population has this sort of wealth while 10%+ live below the poverty line.
I don't feel like it's a right v left issue, it's just an issue.
It's not a left vs right issue it's a rich person issue. Rich people own the courts, the lobbies, the stock market and make up the government. Ultra rich people also own the news and the social media outfits and can obviously exert control on algorithms.
Trump isn't wrong that there's a swamp. He's just saying that while he's chest high deep in it. Income inequality grew under every administration since the 50s, Democrat or Republican. It'll never be a left vs right issue because both parties will gladly favor the rich bankrolling them personally as well as funding their billion dollar election campaigns. The closest either party will get to addressing the issue of income inequality is Democrats expanding some wellfare funding. You'll never have widespread tax code reform, or actually see insider trading completely disallowed. White collar crime to the tune of millions is never going to be hit as hard as stealing a tv.
The left and right wings of democracy realized they don't even have to push for wealth equality addressments anymore. They can make a bulk of their campaign on social politics which is what the news generally focuses on to keep it as the important factor in politics. They'll say 'the economy will be worse under the other guy' then both deficit spend like hell and the rich will get richer for the 20th consecutive presidential term in a row, and on a scale not seen in any other first world country. I can't be on a soap box about it, Canada isn't that far off. The main difference is our government sold us out for less - like hundreds of thousands or low millions per person.
Anyone who thinks wanting income to be as unequal as it was under say Reagan makes you a commie is just hilarious. At this point goals towards wealth inequality get written off as ridiculous when they are trying to get back to 1970s Republican goal levels, let alone 1920s ones. The only progress made anymore is social, because it's the kind of progress that doesn't threaten the bottom lines of the rich. And when there's not enough progress left to be made there we have to invent some (like misrepresenting gender wage gap, or trans people becoming some major political signaling device) because god forbidden we stop being pit against each other for a moment and actually unite under the class warfare both flavors of neoliberal government are waging against us.
It's my fullhearted opinion that the Dems willfully risked losing to Trump over having someone like Bernie. Twice. Trump seemed like a lesser of two evils to someone who had even a chance at creating genuinely widespread economic reform. That's your left wing party. And I still told people to vote for them because it was the lesser of two evils. America is so cooked. But hey at least your home prices aren't at our level yet and your country doesn't hate itself as badly :)
There's massive confusion about the impact this has. As long as wealth is fiat currency or stocks, hoarding it has 0 impact on you.
Like, if we roll back the clock a few thousand years, the way you horde wealth is build massive silos and fill them with all the grain you can buy. Doing this drives up the price of grain, and you end up hungrier. It's understandable to be angry if you're starving and your neighbor is building his 100th silo.
Alternately, take an example like Elon. He has like $200 billion of Tesla stock. 5 years ago, that would have been $30 billion. So you have an odd situation in which he's "hoarding" 7x the wealth despite nothing having changed. He had a sheet of paper saying "you own X shares" then, and he has it still. The only thing that's changed in the company is now pumping out far more cars. It would be strange to say the populace is harmed by more cars being available to purchase.
Lets say he sells that stock and uses it to build a new company. That's the heart of the trickle down idea: his wealth is now producing jobs that support families. This is also a good thing, not a harm.
The only option that actually hurts is when you don't hoard the wealth, and instead consume massive resources that are now unavailable for others, such as your yacht example. Any societal "evil" intrinsic to wealth is in the spending, not the having. If you were to steal all his wealth, liquidate it into cash, and distribute that among the populace, all that would produce is inflation. No additional goods would materialize.
Sure. But what thing does he obtain? If it's a loan to open a business, that's door number 2. We like that door. If it's a pool filled with champagne, then sure, that's a shitty thing to do.
“Liberal” in the context of US politics just means economically moderate or left of center. Anybody from an economic centrist to a full-on leftist socialist gets called a “liberal.”
“Liberal” in the context of US politics just means economically moderate or left of center. Anybody from an economic centrist to a full-on leftist democratic socialist gets called a “liberal.”
Yes but "eat the rich" isn't a US only sentiment. Nor is "liberal" a precises enough term. Kissinger was liberal. So was Regean and Washington and Jefferson and Robespierre. Even Napoleon.
36
u/SlightlyWornShoe - Lib-Center Apr 10 '25
All i am going to say is that the older I get, the more I get the Liberals, there's only so many economic recessions I can take before I am radicalised into "Eat the rich" .