this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
73 points (76.6% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3623 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Counterpunch.org

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Social democracies actually do have capitalism. Sweden for instance has many corporations that exist and are highly successful, while the rest of the economic system has some socialist attributes.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is that what you’re advocating for?

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure why not, it's got to be better than what I'm living under right now.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

America is a mixed economy. We have social security, Medicare, etc. it’s already a social democracy. So you just want more of it. The problem is capitalism always corrupts it because the for profit model makes greed the priority. That’s why some want to get rid of that impetus. They want a planned economy that doesn’t operate on scarcity.

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's absolutely what I'm advocating for.

Keep capitalism. Allow people to become rich. Use the promise of money to fuel innovation and labor.

... but, after the wealth is generated, we use an extremely aggressive, progressive tax system to functionally call wealth at some level that fuels ambition, but recognized that the majority of that vast wealth was generated by the workers.

For example, Bill Gates at one point was with 80 BILLION dollars. Can anyone say with a straight face that back when he was working out of a garage, he would have been any less motivated if he knew he could get (only?!) 50 million dollars?

Of course not. That's a fortune.. That's all your material needs met for your whole life, and a great inheritance to leave for your family. So why not ramp up all taxes, exponentially, forn income and wealth beyond $50m?

The innovations would be the same, the companies would be the same, but either by taxes or by salaries or stock options, the WORKERS would have shared in that 80 BILLION that Gates hoarded.

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

So, like the New Deal with progressive tax rates to 90%?

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

Yes. Higher, even as you get close to 50m.

Current wealth distribution in the US is INSANELY skewed.. Corrections will have to be extremely drastic.

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

You don’t want to do this?

In 2018, U.S. households held over $113 trillion in assets. For context, that is over five times as much as all the goods and services produced in the U.S. economy in a single year. If that amount were divided evenly across the U.S. population of 329 million, it would result in over $343,000 for each person. For a family of three, that’s over a million dollars in assets.

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

I have know and worked with people who have made a lot of money. Not billions, but millions. The ones who actually do the innovating don't do it for the money. And most of the ones not innovating actually are doing it because they are competitive. They want to be the best. Money is part of that, but only in the relative to others sense.

Now here's the rub. The innovators can't innovate without someone paying the bill. And the competitors aren't just competing with people in their own country.

So any solution needs to deal with those complexities.

[–] within_epsilon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I would build software even if I was not being paid for doing the work. I am lucky to trade my time for money in something I would be doing anyway. I have less say over my projects than I would like, but at least I get to make projects that make me happy.

I seem to be bad at making money when owners make my yearly salary per hour.

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

Government grants... Democratic influence over where research is directed.

Publicly owned venture capital firms.

Non-profit grants

We have government grants. But it is impossible to find a body to decide who gets them that isn't biased and/or corrupt.

We also have publicly owned venture capital firms

Not sure what the last one is exactly... but pretty sure we have that too.

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

Does wealth really fuel ambition? Id feel like eventually it would just become a growing number in an account. I think a lot of people on top want power but I believe the innovators are fueled by creativity and curiosity. Maybe some jobs are useless. Do we need 10000 fast food choices? Do we need 10000 different stupid apps? Do we need to constantly grow like a virus, destroying the planet and anything that stops our growth? Enslaving people in meaningless jobs to keep the machine growing.

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The ability to get acquire wealth ABSOLUTELY fuels ambition. The concept that working harder and smarter will yield financial rewards? It's driven more innovation than anything else in history.

Creativity, discovery, and problem solving are fun... but taking an new idea and turning into something useful.... That's MOSTLY drudgery, and very expensive in both time and money. The financial rewards at the end of the journey are what fuel people and institutions.

[–] Stinkywinks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Sure not starving to death and living a comfortable life, but I'd say there's a limit to most. What is it for you? The number in the account, all the useless materialism, or the power of being in charge of everything and everyone you own? I don't think any of the reasons is a good way to live, and I doubt most even want to live that way. We don't need to be mindless hoarders.