TheDannysaur @ TheDannysaur @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

156

Joined

3 yr. ago

Got it, apologies on the typo and subsequent misunderstanding.

I think we're both after the same thing - I guess I'm just trying to get the safety net before attacking the "top" of what is reasonable.

And I'm kind of OK with a nearly infinite top... As long as the tax rate makes sense. If you're at a 95% tax rate (and loopholes aren't rampant... Lot of ifs here) then go nuts. You'll be supplying a good life for many people, by force, as a result of good taxes and public policy.

Yes, the disparity is the problem. But it needs to actually be spread out. Things like universal health care do that inherently if they properly raise taxes on the rich.

Redistributing wealth from the top 0.1% to the top 1% doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.

And yes, paying for it will come from taxing the rich. None of that has to do with capitalism exclusively.

I feel like we're after the same thing but you're more interested in attacking my idea than building something together or proposing something different. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but your questions are quite loaded and you didn't offer anything of substance yourself. The only thing you didn't deflect back to me was saying "the disparity is the problem", and that is precisely the point I was making. I'm specifically pointing out that it's about the full disparity.

I think concern is placed on the wrong end, at least in terms of criticality.

I am less concerned about "maximums" right now. I know that's going to set off all kinds of alarm bells right now, but bear with me.

The two are intertwined for sure, but I'm mostly concerned with "minimums". If we had a society with Universal Basic Income, housing and Healthcare for everyone, and people had a safety net to pursue their passions, then I'm far less concerned about if someone has a billion dollars.

Again, they are both part of the same problem, but it's the focus. If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn't solve anything.

So yeah if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away.

From there we can continue the debate, but I'm more concerned about taking care of everyone who is closer to the floor then worrying about the ceiling. I think there are capitalist ways that continue to reward actual breakthroughs and risks rather than the exploitation we have now.

It doesn't even seem current proof lol

I mean if you're talking about this version of capitalism, sure. But capitalism is more than one thing. These monolithic ideas that you are either capitalist or socialist or something else really downgrades the debate.

I have no love for what we have today. But there's a version of capitalism I could live with - it's just a far cry from what we have.

These overly simplistic memes don't do any favors, in my opinion. Saying if you believe in capitalism you are right wing is more alienating than galvanizing, and it reduces so many concepts down to such basic ones that there's no real meaning left.

I assume this is a 1985 reference. I see you.

This definitely won't be popular, hope you stick with me to the end, but real estate is collateral that holds its value quite well most of the time, and is insured by the homeowner.

Stocks don't have that. Companies with large valuations can liquidate overnight.

Does that mean it's all a bad idea? No, but it just is different than the frame provided. They are different assets.

Taxing rich people in new ways can be a good thing. Taxing unrealized gains gets complicated, but can be done. But also comparing it to property tax is problematic for a lot of reasons. There are much better arguments, so I think we should stick with those. This one has too many easy attack angles with valid points, even if the main point of "rich people get out of taxes more than normies" is completely true.

I got a Google TV box and disconnected my Samsung TV from the internet. A week later I got an email about how connecting them helps me because it sends the data and my preferences back to Samsung.

... It sends thousands of information pings each day.

... So you do it explicitly to try and make others not like something? That seems like a less than desirable trait as a human.

I think that's all fair. But individual reps might care. I think that's where you can make progress. Those midterms are coming in hot for all those reps.

The Republican party is Trump at the moment, and those reps are looking at getting their asses kicked out of a job.

Then I would try to communicate that better. Your 3 sentences in the original end with they don't care, it doesn't matter, and that's the problem with the protests. It comes across completely defeatist.

So I guess we already lost and should just accept things no matter how bad they get

Love this. I think people expect to work through things with the same understanding that they look back on them with.

We have actually mobilized a record number of people. If we're having the argument about where to point them, I think people are missing the point that it's the right problem to have.

I'm a bit tired of the people who want like a neat list of 2 demands and deadlines and a plan of action and an excel spreadsheet of if-then statements that lay out precisely what needs to happen.

We're not in charge of fixing shit.

The citizenry does not need to have a clean plan. These protests are as wide as the abuses of power that we've seen. They contradict Trump's ability to take the narrative and shift it. If the protests were all about stopping war, then they'd shift the narrative to something else.

Yes, I understand it's broad, but the Trump Administration has shown that they are fine going in any direction. So the protests are responding to that directly, and people don't seem to understand it.

You can cuddle up with your "these aren't real protests" theories all you want, but these are the largest gatherings in history. At a minimum you have to ask yourself why it's different. Maybe you think the answer is mass delusion among an unprecedented group - whatever, I can't stop your reasoning there.

But it cannot be denied that these have spurred more action than any other protest movement, and it's growing. At a minimum you should try to understand why.

EDIT: clearly struck a nerve with this one. People getting fiery in the comments. It's the same "if you can't name the solution then it's pointless". I think that's quite short sighted. Also one comment was talking about economic pain... There is a general strike planned for May 1st. This is a ramping up. If they started with the general strike, there's no way it would have worked. This one has a chance. People are acting like all they needed was the right list of demands and then everyone would have immediately agreed and then something would have changed. It's a growing movement. People are buying into the idea. A general strike has an exponentially better chance to work, but yet these protests were apparently pointless. If you don't think they will work, then get out of the way. The amount of people trying to diminish the efforts of others while doing nothing themselves is baffling. Maybe this isn't a great use of time or energy, but it's far more than what you are doing. So get onboard or go start your own thing and win out in the marketplace of ideas.

I feel in the minority on this. It felt like watching someone else play a video game as a plot.

The ideas were OK, but the slapstick seemed crazy childish to me. I just did not get into it at any point.

Like I didn't think it was just ok, I was pretty actively turned away by it.

Could be just not in my style, but it was the first time I've watched something and completely misunderstood the hype. I can listen to music or watch movies & tv shows and not be that into it but understand it. Succession was that way. Wasn't for me, but could see the appeal.

Hundreds of Beavers was just awful for me personally.

I think it was peak buyers remorse. People wanted electric but didn't fully know the downsides. For example, our Bolt had a battery that said like 230 miles. I'm in the Midwest... Cold highway driving makes that like 140 or so, no joke. It's just not a road trip car.

We knew that going in, so it's a great second car. But I think some people realized that no road trip ability plus hour long charging stops were just not going to cut it.

Legit in the dead of winter it was like 60/40 driving vs charging time. Charging for an hour got you like 90 minutes of driving.

I got a 2021 Chevy Bolt. Insanely cheap, has worked great. We have the highest trim model, but you can get lower ones with less features.

In the peak of used car nonsense post covid, we traded a 2012 Nissan Sentra (no trim level) with 80k miles for the 2021 Bolt with less than 3k miles. After tax incentives, I think the difference was $2,500. It didn't make sense at the time and still doesn't. But people were really afraid of electric cars then.

I agree with your larger point, but I think the super bowl comparison is poor. Popularity has changed so ticket prices will have gone up. The first Super Bowl is not what it is today. The luxury car example was a much better like-for-like comparison.

I mean I'm with you but don't say a full 10 seconds. That's easily contradicted by the video. You're right on all the other points, but exaggerating the time like that really harms the point you are making.

I bought a used one for $350 off FB Marketplace a month ago, and I'm glad I did. I figured all of this would hit GPUs as well, so I rushed to get a good deal on one.

It's been beautiful.