this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
904 points (97.7% liked)

World News

38755 readers
3486 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 100 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Trickle down never worked, this is end game capitalism, something else needs to be added to this mix to fix this mess.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Capitalism naturally ends up in this position. That's why it's so hard to "fix" -- to those at the top, nothing is wrong.

[–] Qualanqui 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exactly, capitalism is economic perpetual motion, you can't have exponential growth in a finite system.

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I might be wrong, but I think you mean infinite growth in a finite system.

You can have exponential growth in a finite system can't you? As exponential is just that it gets faster and faster compared to linearly increasing variables.

I guess at some point growth has to stop being exponential in a finite system, but the same can be argued for linear growth I think.

[–] elegantgoat1@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah I agree. It's still called exponential growth, even if it's temporary.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

Yes. Simple math.

And yet you already got a downvote for it.

[–] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not regulated properly, that's the problem

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 year ago (24 children)

But those regulations are constantly labeled as "anticapitalist" -- because they are.

Why is it so wrong to poke at the inner workings of capitalism? Why must it be infallible?

[–] BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the people benefiting from its brokenness aren't ready to stop salting the earth for numbers.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...I think you may have misread my comment.

I'm saying it's broken and asking why it should be accepted as infallible.

[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought they were just agreeing with you, FWIW

[–] BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

You're right - but I can see how the tone was interpreted as oppositional, I could have worded it differently to direct that more clearly. No harm afaik, lol.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You have been banned from c/Conservative.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 6 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Capitalism is, ultimately, a variant of the Pirate Game, which has some spectacularly unintuitive results.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Of course, unfortunately, replace the word "capitalism" with pretty much every at scale economic "system", and you get similar results: some group granted authority and power over the rest and "everythings fine" even when they are not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Trickle down didn't work in the 1980's or anytime after that.

Trickle down did work in the 1940's, 1950's, and most of the 1960's, it just wasn't called "trickle down" at that time.

The difference was a punitively high tax rate that nobody actually paid, because they found better ways to spend their excess revenue than simply giving it to Uncle Sam.

It turns out that when the richest among us are forced to spend instead of lend, the rest of us finally start to earn fair wages.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, that's not really "trickle down" as championed by Reagan, that's more "use it or lose it". He wanted to reduce those crazy high tax rates to give the rich the choice of whether to keep the money for later or to spend it now, with "trickle down" being the phrase to tell people that it's fine, it'll make it's way out to everyone else... eventually?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

something else needs to be added to this mix to fix this mess

Could Universal Basic Income play a role in this?

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Band aid solution. The system remains unchanged. The billionaires still make their profits off of the backs of you and me.

load more comments (2 replies)

Well at least after AI and robots replace a good portion of the workforce, detaching happy, educated citizens from the societies money flow.

My guess is gouverment by powerful corporation and people unable to adapt dying in gutters, rather that universal income.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There was a "this day in history" tidbit a day or two because it was the anniversary of the last guillotine execution.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The last so far.

[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well there was this guy called Karl Marx, who tried to suggest solutions to the problems of capitalism.

...but I hear he's not trending these days. Wrong kind of people liked his stuff.

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Actually socialism is more popular now than ever. Enough that mainstream media constantly writes scare articles about how socialist the young generations are.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The media thinking they can threaten me with a good time...

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That's what the media has always done. It's just that in this age it's the easiest it's ever been to see past red scare propaganda.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

surges

Forgive me if I wait for changes before believing anything is happening. Shit surged a long time ago.

[–] bobman@unilem.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Covid facilitated the greatest transfer of wealth from the masses to the few in human history.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Ehhh Colonialist Spain would likely have a few choice words about that

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We're seeing so many economic problems being caused too much wealth being concentrated. Supply side economics was a stupid idea from the outset, but now we're in the supply side economics endgame.

The wealthy are using that wealth to make products no one needs while people are struggling to afford the things they actually do need. $3500 for Apple goggles? We don't need that and couldn't afford it if we did. How about yet another streaming service? Don't need it, can't afford it. Maybe some VR goggles the you can use to go into a virtual world where you're a legless cartoon character? We'll rename the company after this new product, that'll get people to buy it for sure!

Well shit, it seems the wealthy have so much money, they don't have anywhere to put it. Doesn't seem like enough people are buying the products they develop with that wealth, so what can they invest that money in? I know, maybe they should put it into real estate! Great, now ordinary people can't afford a place to live. Yay, supply side economics is working great!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] luthis 17 points 1 year ago

This is one of the main factors behind my vote this year.

That, free dental, and also keeping the ocean from getting too close to my house.

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is anything ever going to happen though?

[–] Saneless@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

Sure, once the people who have their entire campaign funded by these rich people vote on our behalf

[–] Digital_Prophet@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

~~guillotine~~

Tar and feather.

Sends a message.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

We tar an feather every tenth billionaire. Our message must be multi-faceted and diversified, like a billionaires investment portfolio

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

A weaker message.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

The calls are growing up so fast, like weeds. /s

load more comments
view more: next ›