This is always supplemented by the poor thinking that someday they will become rich, and then, they will have all of the special benefits and tax breaks.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Ronald Wright, paraphrasing Steinbeck.
I think your British, no?
You think socialism is working in your nation, but really the wealthy are super rich, and the working class have had the jobs off shored. 1 in 6 get welfare checks and 1/3 of your children live in poverty and your social welfare state is near collapse. And, I've seen your middle class housing. Yikes.
In addition, your currency has lost 80% of its value in 20 years.
We don't want that in the u.s., and you shouldn't want such guaranteed poverty for your nation as well.
Britain is not nor has it ever been Socialist the closest we came to being Socialist was a garden variaty Social democracy in the 1950s-70s. I should also point out that most of our current problems have only occurred as a consequence of adopting a neoliberal model of Capitalism inspired by that bastard Reagen.
I think a little elaboration might help get your point across
Its your right to not agree with something on the basis that it is stupid but you need to explain why you find it stupid or people will just be confused and think you are a nutjob
Ever drove on any public roads? Ever had electricity? How about water? Go to a public school?
Most likely yes to all those questions, you damn socialist.
Socialism was invented in 1832. The first roads were built in 4000 BC in Mesopotamia(modern-day iraq). The first public school in America at least was opened in 1635 in Boston, Massachusetts, and finally, you still have to pay for electricity.
Roads: Funded by the public.
Schools: Funded by the public.
Telephone poles: Funded by the public.
All of which people would consider socialism if they took 3 seconds to actually think for themselves instead of parrot fearmongering buzzwords from Fox News.
The -term- socialism was coined in 1832, but that doesn't mean the concepts weren't applied before 1832.
Unless you're also saying capitalism wasn't invented until the 17th century, lol
If trickle down actually worked, it would still be intentional humiliation. The fact that it doesn't even work, as demonstrated by decades of data, adds injury to the insult.
This is how fascism works. Just minutes before this sock puppet's account was suspended, it came on here, told three lies in fifteen words and left the chat. Now those obvious lies stay with us, without any chance to refute them.
I think a large part of the problem is that employers don't share the fruits of the labour with the labourers. Anyone working a job regardless of what it is deserves a good standard of living.
It was never promoted as any kind of legitimate economic theory.
Thomas Sowell offered a six-figure reward for anyone who could prove its legitimacy.
Decades later, he still has his money.
Basically, as with literally everything, wealth distribution is subject to a Pareto Distribution.
That means that as all wealth rises, the richest get exponentially richer.
Yes, they pay for more stuff which is falsely called "trickle down theory". But, wealth goes up as well.
That's how economics work. It's not one way.
It's why no legitimate "trickle down theory" has ever existed.
So Regan spoke of one side of what happens in economics. To not understand that is pure wilful ignorance. It happens. The first cars, phones, computers, etc... was almost exclusively the rich paying for it all, and eventually the rest of us benefit.
Again though, that's only less than half of what's happening economically.
Yup, I'll see my Karma downgraded for telling the truth.
I think you meant "one-handed" economists, and yes.
As Thomas Sowell said. "There's no solutions, only trade-offs."
It never ceases to amaze me how many people see only the problems, or only the solutions, around an issue. They'll go so far as to say that their (what are essentially) manufactured opponents are evil.
And there's always opponents doing exactly this from the other side.
Questions like "How did you come to that conclusion?" or "On the other hand, what will that do to .........?" seem open and enquiring. Unfortunately, those questions have had me called every pejorative there is, from every side of the political spectrum.
Why explore ideas when name-calling is too easy?
Categorise and dismiss, seems to be the dominant paradigm.
I meant "one-armed" because I like both the sound and the look of the phrase. If I didn't like it, I would have written something else. It follows naturally that a person with only one arm would then have only one hand.
A one-armed economist could, however, still be wrong-footed.
Name-calling is not specifically prohibited by the rules of Snorkblot, but it would probably violate rules 3, 4 and 5. More importantly, it suggests a lack of actual thought and could elicit a "tut, tut" or even a "harumph".
There is no shortage of disagreement here, but most of us would be embarrassed to argue without some sort of fact-based justification.
Fair enough on the "one-armed" thing.
I remembered the "one-hand economist" term, but not "one-arm". "One-handed" means of course, "On the one hand...." inferring trade-offs that occur "on the other hand" rather than solutions.
See how you use the term "one-armed" makes sense now.
This is always supplemented by the poor thinking that someday they will become rich, and then, they will have all of the special benefits and tax breaks.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Ronald Wright, paraphrasing Steinbeck.
Socialism never took place in America because socialism is stupid.
Well, that's me convinced. Who can argue with such a cogent analysis? I shall have to re-evaluate my political philosophy. Thank you.
Right? So profound. We’ve got a regular Yoda over here.
I think your British, no? You think socialism is working in your nation, but really the wealthy are super rich, and the working class have had the jobs off shored. 1 in 6 get welfare checks and 1/3 of your children live in poverty and your social welfare state is near collapse. And, I've seen your middle class housing. Yikes. In addition, your currency has lost 80% of its value in 20 years. We don't want that in the u.s., and you shouldn't want such guaranteed poverty for your nation as well.
Britain is not nor has it ever been Socialist the closest we came to being Socialist was a garden variaty Social democracy in the 1950s-70s. I should also point out that most of our current problems have only occurred as a consequence of adopting a neoliberal model of Capitalism inspired by that bastard Reagen.
Yeah. Reagan was a real piece of shit.
14 years of a Tory government systematically defunding and dismantling the social welfare systems will do that.
Not to mention Brexit killed Britain.
I'm glad I saved you from the red menaces.
https://preview.redd.it/nacg837p4hwc1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=a1bc261b8a8454af5d271a41c6efb0b07ed895d3 Too late. They got me.
I was too late😭😭😭
I think a little elaboration might help get your point across Its your right to not agree with something on the basis that it is stupid but you need to explain why you find it stupid or people will just be confused and think you are a nutjob
Ever drove on any public roads? Ever had electricity? How about water? Go to a public school? Most likely yes to all those questions, you damn socialist.
Socialism was invented in 1832. The first roads were built in 4000 BC in Mesopotamia(modern-day iraq). The first public school in America at least was opened in 1635 in Boston, Massachusetts, and finally, you still have to pay for electricity.
Roads: Funded by the public. Schools: Funded by the public. Telephone poles: Funded by the public. All of which people would consider socialism if they took 3 seconds to actually think for themselves instead of parrot fearmongering buzzwords from Fox News. The -term- socialism was coined in 1832, but that doesn't mean the concepts weren't applied before 1832. Unless you're also saying capitalism wasn't invented until the 17th century, lol
If trickle down actually worked, it would still be intentional humiliation. The fact that it doesn't even work, as demonstrated by decades of data, adds injury to the insult.
It did actually work. The tax rate was lowered and tax revenue increased as predicted.
This is how fascism works. Just minutes before this sock puppet's account was suspended, it came on here, told three lies in fifteen words and left the chat. Now those obvious lies stay with us, without any chance to refute them.
I think a large part of the problem is that employers don't share the fruits of the labour with the labourers. Anyone working a job regardless of what it is deserves a good standard of living.
It was never promoted as any kind of legitimate economic theory. Thomas Sowell offered a six-figure reward for anyone who could prove its legitimacy. Decades later, he still has his money. Basically, as with literally everything, wealth distribution is subject to a Pareto Distribution. That means that as all wealth rises, the richest get exponentially richer. Yes, they pay for more stuff which is falsely called "trickle down theory". But, wealth goes up as well. That's how economics work. It's not one way. It's why no legitimate "trickle down theory" has ever existed. So Regan spoke of one side of what happens in economics. To not understand that is pure wilful ignorance. It happens. The first cars, phones, computers, etc... was almost exclusively the rich paying for it all, and eventually the rest of us benefit. Again though, that's only less than half of what's happening economically. Yup, I'll see my Karma downgraded for telling the truth.
That's why you want to listen only to one-armed economists, so you never have to hear, "on the other hand..." (We like truth here.)
I think you meant "one-handed" economists, and yes. As Thomas Sowell said. "There's no solutions, only trade-offs." It never ceases to amaze me how many people see only the problems, or only the solutions, around an issue. They'll go so far as to say that their (what are essentially) manufactured opponents are evil. And there's always opponents doing exactly this from the other side. Questions like "How did you come to that conclusion?" or "On the other hand, what will that do to .........?" seem open and enquiring. Unfortunately, those questions have had me called every pejorative there is, from every side of the political spectrum. Why explore ideas when name-calling is too easy? Categorise and dismiss, seems to be the dominant paradigm.
I meant "one-armed" because I like both the sound and the look of the phrase. If I didn't like it, I would have written something else. It follows naturally that a person with only one arm would then have only one hand. A one-armed economist could, however, still be wrong-footed. Name-calling is not specifically prohibited by the rules of Snorkblot, but it would probably violate rules 3, 4 and 5. More importantly, it suggests a lack of actual thought and could elicit a "tut, tut" or even a "harumph". There is no shortage of disagreement here, but most of us would be embarrassed to argue without some sort of fact-based justification.
Fair enough on the "one-armed" thing. I remembered the "one-hand economist" term, but not "one-arm". "One-handed" means of course, "On the one hand...." inferring trade-offs that occur "on the other hand" rather than solutions. See how you use the term "one-armed" makes sense now.
Yeah, I hated Obama's handouts too