Think young people are hostile to capitalism now? Wait for the next recession

Post by zip1234 » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #20

perceptronas wrote: post #10

>After the 2008 recession, President Obama and the Democrats effectively saved capitalism from itself; a more radical leadership would fight to replace it with a better system. This time around there may be far more pressure from below to do just that, especially with a more organized left and more class conscious young people. As a former soviet occupied country citizen, I am amazed that westerners would want to ove…

In the US, things like fair tax codes, universal access to affordable healthcare, and affordable universities are considered "socialism". The "not capitalism" of the soviet bloc is not even close to what the article is disucssing

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #212

toomuchtodo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adam Neumann (WeWork) coaxed billions of dollars out of Softbank for nothing of value in return. I would not consider that productive. Having wealth does not immediately confirm the activity that allowed for that wealth was productive, nor that one is productive for having amassed wealth.

Ehhh, fleecing the Saudis is arguably productive. But yes, there are certainly wealthy people who are not more productive than an S&P 500 index fund. (this might still be more productive than the US government, of course) But how do you propose to tax them and not the Bezos' and Musks of the world?

Post by zip1234 » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

sol_remmy2 wrote: post #167

poidos wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This opinion leaves out many of the parts of living in modern society that go beyond what we can choose. Just as a quick example, in the US, you don't choose to get sick and fall into medical debt -- but capitalism underpins the health system that induces that medical debt (which is a major contributor to poverty [0].) It seems like you may be confusing the situation of the people in your immediate circle with the la…

> you don't choose to get sick and fall into medical debt -- but capitalism underpins the health system that induces that medical debt (which is a major contributor to poverty [0].) The medical system not a free market. It is a hybrid of a state-controlled system and a capitalistic system. Here are some ways of how the system is state-controlled: 1. Hospitals cannot be freely constructed. One must apply for a "certif…

Post by DuskStar » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #213

DuskStar wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh, fleecing the Saudis is arguably productive. But yes, there are certainly wealthy people who are not more productive than an S&P 500 index fund. (this might still be more productive than the US government, of course) But how do you propose to tax them and not the Bezos' and Musks of the world?

Bezos and Musk reinvested all of their wealth into their own endeavors. Craft policy to support such efforts. You still tax productive activities, just not as much as unproductive activities (such as mega-yachts or sailing teams, which are luxury goods).

Post by _qzu7 » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

Will_Parker wrote: post #169

wayoutthere wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the pronouns thing is literally about being nice to people and respecting their ability to define their own identity. It's less "we need more than two sets of gendered pronouns" and more "people use pronouns other than he or she and we want to make space for that".

And any sort of diversion from that approved narrative, like suggesting that some of this is going a little too far, will make you a pariah in the industry. This is what I'm getting in, in questioning how much "the establishment" allows vigorous debate.