Let the engine of capitalism generate wealth (as it does so better than any other economic system) … but then make sure that wealth is going to the people who generate it.
If the top is getting more than their fair share, redistribute it through government programs that benefit the workers and their families.
We need to do this nationwide so that tax cheats can’t just run away to a different state… And we need to do it at much higher level that recognizes the reality that no one has ever EARNED a billion dollars. They’ve only stolen it from their workers because of a rigged government and legal system.
And by the way, the rich should be super happy if we able to get this done, because the alternative is that we keep heading down the current path until the working class gets so poor that they can no longer feed their kids… and at that point, history tells us, the guillotines come out.
They won't be happy about it. You are right, they should be. But, they don't have that kind of perspective.
Being rich isn't about money, it's about ego. They think they could solve this with better outcomes and efficiency themselves, even though they will never actually do it.
It's why union busting is so popular from otherwise "good" companies run by "socially minded" executives. It's why companies will continue to amass wealth to the point where it negatively effects customers ability to purchase their products. It's why rich individuals continue to amass wealth when it doesn't really improve their quality of life, they could just stop working.
Because to them it's just a contest. They just need to show they are better than someone else; first one person, then another, then another, real world outcomes and everyone else be damned. They will take it as far as they're allowed until no one is left and everyone's lives and the planet are catastrophically ruined.
Capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. are just mechanisms for the distribution of finite resources. Allowing market forces to drive production is great for some things like consumer products, but not so great for things like healthcare, education, environmental protections, and kid’s lunches. Capitalism needs government restrictions more than capitalists like to admit.
Take a look at why communism failed: When resources are distributed by a central authority, it doesn’t matter how well intentioned they are, at best they can only approximate which goods will be valued most by which individual at any given time. People would end up with an abundance of stuff they didn’t want, and a deficit in things they needed.
In a free market, supply and demand are constantly adjusting on an individual level with every transaction. Can’t get flour at the price I want? Fine, I’ll get potatoes. Can’t get flour or potatoes? Maybe a communist government thinks rice would be a good substitute.
But if it’s money in my hand, maybe I know I’ve got some other carbs and starch, and if I can’t get flour or potatoes, my money would best go to medicine or shoelaces… the point is, I’m setting my own priorities, and they aren’t always related or predictable.
Maybe I really want shoe laces, but they aren’t worth $6 to me. Maybe I’d pay 50 cents for them, otherwise, I’d rather use butchers twine, for a fraction of the cost, and just resign myself to retying my shoe.
Capitalism allows people to be nimble and adaptive. Communism was a: you take what you get, and that’s IT.
So people were getting things they didn’t value, and highly valuing things they couldn’t get, and it was just … inefficient.
Well the USSR did also have a huge industrial machinery. But one thing that seems to emerge as a lesson from its downfall is that it is really hard to steer an economy with quotas and plans from the top.
A good market usually gives better incentives for people at every level. The problem is getting a good market which is definitely not the same as the libertarian dream of a super free market. Without good regulations it’s really easy for markets to get captured or become exploitative.
Some thinks should never be privatised(like infrastructure). And I think lots of industries would benefit from a state run (mostly nonprofit) competitor.
Well at the moment the revenue is not paying for the school lunches, the text says it will in 2024. I wonder if this will work out, or if the rich will leave as many opponents of rich-taxes often argue.
The idea that we require children to go to school but don’t feed them healthy food automatically when they’re in class is insane. We’ve got money for all the fighter jets but can’t feed kids.
Hunger is a terrible motivator for kids in school. How the hell are they supposed to know what The Scarlet Letter is talking about when they haven’t eaten?
Add comment