Those Norwegians are sure puffin’ up themselves! /s
US billionaires:
“Wait, you mean to say that we can keep our current quality of life, dabble in our little space projects, and that those we employ won’t suffer???”
“Lol naw fuck that.”
You mean, instead of having $ 99.9, I would only get 99? Over my cold, dead body!
Yeah… It’s like the mobile f2p games. The paying players need the f2p players so they can stomp on them.
Unfathomable wealth isnt enough, they also need to rule.
Exactly. The cruelty is the point. They enjoy making people suffer.
I feel like it’s a means of creating a further distance between the rich and poor when conventional means have reached their limit, though i imagine there is likely at least some sadistic pleasure they derive from it (and there are very likely some that get a lot)
Here’s a comparison that came to mind for me: when i make dinner, i like to make my wife and i a salad but I’ll go out of my way to make a very nice presentation of the various ingredients on my wife’s salad. I will have the exact same ingredients for mine, but intentionally slop them onto the plate with hasty abandon and even take measures to try to make it look even worse. I like to argue that my wife’s salad is the better of the 2, that there is a hierarchy that’s immediately distinguishable–even though it’s the exact same stuff. That her salad is actually even better than if they both had been presented the same way–that i can make that basic salad even better than previously thought possible by creating a severe inequality in its presentation to the other one. Of course, that’s a very harmless comparison but i think there’s something in it.
I mean, it’s like the rich can only be so pleased with their riches and the luxuries it affords them. Not to mention a lot of that stuff probably becomes trite/commonplace even if it’s a giant yacht or fancy food or living space or whatever. They can only be so happy, and sustaining that happiness is probably not easy when you’ve burned through the conventional happiness-granting activities. It would seem that they find more nuanced, and perhaps even perverted means of pressing the happiness button. I suppose Epstein’s Island really kinda drives home that whole disgusting “someone has to suffer in order for me to be happy” kinda dynamic.
It’s disgusting to think people derive pleasure from making others suffer like this, but it’s not the least surprising to discover. 🫠
I notice a lot of wealthy people spiral out with drugs or plastic surgery, they’re just desperately grasping to get the magic back.
There also seems to be a distinct lack of meaning for life for the wealthy. Any changes they could effect with their money means they wouldn’t have the money anymore, so they stop caring about any problems their money could fix (which is a lot of them). Ultimately leading to complete callousness over human suffering.
They are already at that point when they decided to invest all of that money that was sitting for 30+ years into AI instead of humanity’s problems.
I’m going. That’s all there is to it. I’m fucking going.
If you can survive the winter, it’s a pretty amazing place. Summers are beautiful but pretty short.
Norway has a very high gini coefficient, i.e. high inequality. It’s just that the people at the bottom still get a decent standard of living.
You know, I don’t think most people care about the inequality so much as the abject misery of being at the bottom of that equation. I kinda wouldn’t care how many yachts a rich buffoon has if there weren’t so many starving desperate people, it’s just the optics are wholly awful for these ghouls in the world where cruelty and greed are so rampant that it’s inevitable even the crumbs are sucked from those who need them the most.
I agree. I’d much rather be poor in Norway than in the US.
I would kind of care that there is blatant division between people’s worth as human beings depending on how much money they possess.
There is a deep equitable drive between human beings, we want fairness and equality as a matter of who we are as a species. Moderate differences in standard of living are tolerable, but social discrepancies over a certain limit unravels the fabric of our human connection.
In a way, capitalism turns us into monsters, predating on one another. There is no lowest common level of comfort that could ever undo that type of break with who we are, because we are more than the arbitrary division the system creates. We are creatures with dignity and a sense of justice.
If I make one dollar for every million you make, we haven’t “both gotten richer”.
worth noting how norway is rich off of oil
True and the Nordics have plenty of poverty themselves once people look closer.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Not even a successful society is perfect. It certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. It’s still better than what most of the rest of the world is doing.
It certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Nobody said we shouldn’t. The point is, we shouldn’t look away from the issues in a country just because they are doing better than others in some cases.
It means that when people advocate for improvements, YOU SHOULD STOP IMMEDIATELY PLAYING CRAB BUCKET.
Let better be better and then sure raise some issues. Your comment seems intentionally obtuse.
It means that when people advocate for improvements, YOU SHOULD STOP IMMEDIATELY PLAYING CRAB BUCKET.
…your argument is that we literally should not criticize ideas until they’re actually implemented and proven to be lacking? How does one establish that something is better without open critique?
I think it speaks more to who you are as a pwrson that your first reaction is to criticize an idea.
Negativity begets negativity. I choose to look for positivity and hope first, and criticize later.
You’re seeing a motivation behind my comment that isn’t there, so you really shouldn’t call me obtuse. Is Norway doing pretty good? Yes! Could they also do better? Yes! I’m not playing crab bucket, but I’m also not sticking my head in the sand here.
Maybe next time open with the “pretty good” stuff. Before this comment everything cooking was negative which sure looks like crab bucket (not just from you, but also from you) and I’m still leaning toward obtuse by omission tbh.
I’m sorry I didn’t spoon feed my comment for you, mister obtuse.
Norway relies on the exploitation of billions in the global south, as all of the western world does.
What does that even mean? For those of us who aren’t in the know like you are, that phrase doesn’t mean anything to us.
And if you’re open to a friendly suggestion, nix the “western world” propaganda; focus on explaining the “exploitation of billions in the global south” part.
Norway doesn’t produce cocoa beans. Norway doesn’t produce cotton, or bananas, or iron ore, or cobalt, or gold, or most basic raw materials you need to run a society. Neither do Spain, or Germany, or France, or the USA. Instead, these countries focus on the production of high value-added goods and services, which they can do because they are historically highly industrialized, developed, and have high levels of education, infrastructure and concentration of productive capital.
In this manner, Germany imports iron ore from poor countries in the global south at low prices, and exports cars at high prices. In the international market, therefore, one hour of German/French/Norwegian work is exchanged often for tens of hours of work from India, or Congo, or Mexico. This is unequal exchange, and is the pillar of neocolonialism.
Through political, economical and military powers, the western world has ensured that the global south remains underdeveloped. IMF predatory loans and neoliberal policy impositions, support for fascists or monarchists, coups, or outright military invasions are some of the most common tools the west uses to maintain these countries underdeveloped and with cheap labor.
In the international market, therefore, one hour of German/French/Norwegian work is exchanged often for tens of hours of work from India, or Congo, or Mexico.
Is the argument here that developed goods are worth more on the market than their raw materials & shouldn’t be? Or that a unit of time of more skilled labor to develop those goods from raw materials should earn the same as less skilled labor, so the disparities in their market value is exploitation? If they could earn the same with less skill, then why bother developing skill?
It’s not like they govern the foreign countries of international businesses they trade with for raw materials. Is your argument that they shouldn’t trade internationally for raw materials?
It’s not like they govern the foreign countries of international businesses they trade with for raw materials
Not directly, perhaps, but that’s how neocolonialism works. 14 countries in Africa use currency whose central bank is in Paris, western nations keep military forces in many African countries and support only the governments that they want, and when a nation rejects complete exploitation by western corporations, they either apply sanctions (with the explicit aim of “creating hunger, desperation and overthrow of government”), or organize coups to democratically elected leaders, or directly bomb the fuck out of them.
More subtle means include IMF loans conditioned to applying neoliberal economic policy. In his 100-page resignation letter from the IMF, former IMF senior economist Davison Budhoo described the extensive and systematic statistical fraud used by the IMF to impose its policies on developing countries, and explained that the consequences of these policies led to massive poverty and starvation. In the letter, Budhoo wrote that the IMF’s policies are made in “utter disregard to local conditions” and lead countries to “self destruct” and “unleash unstoppable economic and social chaos” and also compared the IMF’s structural adjustment policies to a “terrorist attack”. He also stated that the routine policy packages of the IMF “can never serve, under any set of circumstances, the cause of financial balance and economic growth” and that “the ill-gotten, inadvertent power that we revel in wielding over prostrate governments and peoples - can only serve to accentuate world tensions”
Is your argument that they shouldn’t trade internationally for raw materials?
My argument is that these countries aren’t allowed to industrialize in their own terms with their own companies. It’s either western corporations controlling everything and extracting the wealth to Europe and North America, or murder.
Care to give some sources to that?
With quick google-fu Nordics seem to be in pretty comfy positions in world wide rankings. Not at the top but certainly in the best 20%
Also there is huge difference in the sense that even if you are poor in the nordics you still have right to healthcare and education. At some places you would just be fucked.
There are people who slip through the cracks (usually those with mental health/drug issues), and that the “basic level” of support hasn’t caught up with inflation…
But regardless, it’s 10000x better than the US system/the system in most other countries.
Worth noting that most of the time oil (newly discovered natural resources really)makes a country poorer than richer. See Venezuela and such.
So good on Norway to not give in to unbridled corruption and out that money on a public fund to make its own citizen wealthy
This is bad analysis. Natural resources don’t make countries poorer, they make the US/UK/France/Spain/Italy invade you.
Libya, rich in oil, was the richest country in Africa (and highest Human Development Index) until the west bombed it and triggered a civil war. Iran was on the way to use its oil for its own profits by nationalizing it under the democratically elected leftist government of Mosaddeq until it got blockaded and couped by MI6+CIA and a corrupt monarch got reinstated. Venezuela took millions of people out of poverty until US sanctions came in an attempt to kill the socialist government and put millions through hardship. Saudi Arabia, having a government very cozy with the US, gets away with no US coups, but has 70% of the population being effectively slaves.
There was a full-blown civil war in Libya well before the intervention of NATO (which had unanimous support from the UN security counicl).
Not unanimous, but not vetoed either (Russia and China abstained from voting).
Sarkozy’s personal interest in the matter also make me doubt France’s wouldn’t have been different under any other government
Edit: I’m not disagreeing with the whole “the UN allowed it”, and the general unrest in Libya before the intervention. Just adding context
There was a full-blown civil war in Libya
And how did the bombing help exactly? Not to mention the western participation in the formation of the civil war itself, with its constant meddling and sanctioning against the Libyan government.
Well yes, Norway’s leader wasn’t assassinated by the US, followed by sanctions and throwing money and weapons at militant factions. I wonder why…
Worth noting that most of the time oil (newly discovered natural resources really)makes a country poorer than richer. See Venezuela and such.
Hmm, somebody should let the Middle East know that they’re poor.
More likely, the discovery of oil attracts the worst kind of industrialists, who will exploit the workers into abject poverty, and take all the wealth. It isn’t the oil that makes the people poor, it is the government who sells them out.
Worth noting that the Nordic model made Norway, and other Nordic countries, quite rich even before they discovered oil.
It is replicable, and continued to make Nordic countries without oil, rich as well.
I don’t get your point? The US is one of, if not the wealthiest, country in the world. We made money off of slaves, oil, gold, child labor and now taking advantage of our working class without paying for healthcare. It also used to be innovation, but that’s going away. We should be doing even better. How many of the wealthiest in the world live here?
The argument isn’t that the US can’t do it, it’s that there are only a few countries that ever could. It’s pitched as some sort of universal fix, but can’t be done without a vast amount of pre-existing wealth.
It’s pitched as some sort of universal fix, but can’t be done without a vast amount of pre-existing wealth
Right, which we have. There are also enough wealthy countries and the EU that could stop causing chaos in developing countries while supporting our own, that would make everyone’s lives better.
You were the first person in this comment chain to mention the US (important to note that the post doesn’t, either). Nobody said the US couldn’t do this, they just explained the reason Norway can.
Norwegian here: the floor is getting more and faulty and it is dependent on the imperial mode of living generally and oil and arms exports specifically
Didint you guys just find one of the biggest rare earth minerals deposit in the world?
The issue with this is that there’s plenty of rare earth minerals (they’re not rare) all around the world, it’s the refining process that is expensive and extremely polluting.
Doesn’t matter if Norway found decades worth of supply, when nobody but China is willing to build the processing plants. And China has more than enough rare earth mineral supplies themselves.
Hard to say. Current political view seem to be that EU wants to get rid of dependancy on china and great way to get free is to start mining our own.
There is pretty large deposits in Sweden, Finland and Norway so one effiecient, central refining plant could be churning virtually limitless amounts of materials, if only there would be enough funding to get the ball rolling. (Before anybody says i know Norway is not part of european union, but it is part of european economic area and part of EFTA) France already has a refining plant so the tech knowledge is already found inside the EU.
The issue is that nobody has found a way to refine it in a way that isn’t extremely polluting without the cost being extremely excessive and making it entirely pointless.
We could mine as much as we want, but the only country OK with refining this stuff is China. Unless we solve the issue of refining this in a relatively clean way at a somewhat competitive price, no refining will ever be set up in Europe.
Yes, we did. But with the current political climate I’m less and less sure that we’ll be able to handle it as well as we did with the oil.
If you want an example of an industry where we didn’t do a great job of spreading the wealth, you can look at our other major export: Salmon.
Salmon seems like a very different resource than oil or rare earth metals. My understanding is that with the oil, it was a resource that largely came out of nowhere. One day Norway had little oil. Suddenly you find this vast field of immense unclaimed resources. It’s a huge resource that no one has a claim to. Thus, it’s reasonably easy to divide it in an equitable way. But salmon? People have been harvesting that resource since the dawn of time. There must be centuries of various rules, laws, ancient royal decrees, relating to who can harvest how much salmon. And there’s going to be people that if you tell them how much salmon they can catch, they’ll point out that their family has been harvesting salmon for generations, and it’s not fair to…And on an on.
Oil seems like a much easier resource to divide equitably, simply because there’s not such a cultural and legal history behind the management of the resource.
A rising tide lifting all boats??? Nah Elon needs to tie three gold cybertrucks together to drive around or his pp cant be the big pp
social democracy is the best form of capitalism but it’s still capitalism
exactly, it’s still exploitative, especially towards the people who can’t benefit from the social democracy (i.e. people living in the global south, who are victims of the north’s imperialism)
colonialism made the metropoles and its people rich, all made possible by the merciless exploitation and genocide of everyone on earth who wasn’t european. anyone talking about the benefits of colonialism in leftist spaces today would rightly be expelled for being a ghoul. but social democracy is just more of the same, you’re not eliminating the exploitation, you’re just moving it.
look at how labor laws in the global north fueled delocalization. companies couldn’t exploit people in their home countries as well anymore, what did they do? exploit other people elsewhere instead.
I think a ceiling would actually be healthy. I don’t love that we’re still pandering to the rich even with this summary. Still, it’s good to push any healthy message. I’m just saying it could be better. No one in the entire world needs more than 20 million dollars. No one. That should be the highest we allow, and even lower would be better.
You know that. And I know that.
But try telling that to 100 million poorly educated voters who think billionaires are acting in their best interests, and public goods of any kind are for poors and losers.
That, is the evil brilliance of Republican marketing.
Eh, no reason to discard the idea of putting a ceiling on the rich. Even if you took away all of the money people had that was over 1 billion dollars, that wouldn’t cause any of those people to suffer.
It would cause them to move to a country without such regulation. Maybe somewhere in Africa or Southeast Asia, or South America. Though maybe there they lose a bunch of their money to corruption so overall it’s a win.
It’s exceedingly rare that they actually do this because they don’t want to live in a third-world country. The irony, ofc, is that their actions are turning the U.S. into one.
If billionaires decide to leave the country then the factories and businesses run by workers producing the billions they made will remain. You can’t pick up a building and take it with you.
This what they so to literally every positive economic policy ever discussed and yet every one of those places still has rich people and overinflated companies. Maybe we should stop believing their lies?
If that were true, they would have already done it.
They scream about taxes and such, but they know that they are in the very best country in the world to get super wealthy. It’s relatively easy to get access to money, systemic corruption is relatively low, and legal bribery is build into the system. The government is literally based on Capitalism.
Sure, they threaten to leave if their billion dollars is threatened with a 1% increase in taxes, but they won’t, because they know that the American economic system is what gave them the billion dollars in the first place. They’re just being whiney little bitches.
These people will lie to you to make you help them get what they want, at YOUR expense. You aren’t obligated to believe them, or help them.
Indeed, whilst it’s more difficult to raise a floor, it’s certainly a good idea to have a roof close enough to it to keep the heat where the people exist
What if we just burn the rich as firewood instead?
It would probably be environmentally friendly even
1000x the median household income. That should be the cap. It’s a nice round number; people can understand it. And it indexes automatically with inflation.
Moreover, this is about the maximum lifetime fortune achievable by someone who actually works for a living. In a US context, 1000x median household income is about $80 million USD. That’s still an incredible amount of money, though just barely achievable by actually working for wages. It’s the kind of fortune two neurosurgeons could amass if they both worked long careers, lived extremely frugally, and invested everything they made. 1000x median household income is what I consider the largest possible ‘honest’ fortune. In order to earn beyond that level, you have to earn your money not through your labor, but the labor of others. You have to start a business and start sponging off the surplus of your employees. 1000x median income is about as large a pile as you can get without relying on exploiting someone else’s labor. And that seems like a reasonable place to set a cap. Still high enough to provide people plenty of incentive to work hard, get an education, better themselves, etc. But no so high that people amass fortunes that are threats to national security.
no reason to discard the idea of putting a ceiling on the rich.
There is a very good reason to discard the idea of assigning an arbitrary ‘maximum wealth’, two actually:
- it’s effectively impossible to actually enforce
- it will cost us more to try to enforce it, than we will gain in revenue
It would be tremendously expensive resource-wise, logistically, to even reliably determine if one has reached that ceiling (net worth figures for individuals that you see in the media are guesses, not the result of actual auditing), much less calculate with any degree of certainty how far over the ceiling someone is, and that ‘research/enforcement cost’ is practically certain to completely cancel out (and then some) any potential added revenue, especially because it’s also trivially easy to circumvent by creating debt, etc.
- it will cost us more to try to enforce it, than we will gain in revenue
That sounds to me like an assertion that has no basis in reality.
That would most likely be because you are ignorant of when it has already literally happened in the past, in other nations.
On multiple occasions in multiple countries, wealth taxes primarily aimed at the wealthiest demographic have been tried, and then repealed because overall tax revenue literally decreased as a result. There is a reason the vast majority of countries that have implemented such taxes have either since repealed them, or ‘loosened’ them such that they’re no longer primarily aimed at said demographic, and have become a much more ‘typical’ tax that the middle class pays.
You’re thinking of wealth of a person. There’s not even a tax on capital yet.
The issue is a bit more… circular than that.
Certain things, certain ventures, need more money than that. And in a free, capitalist society you want people to be able to achieve such goals and ventures.
Problem is, once you pool that wealth into a company (the very meaning of the word, like companion, meaning “together”, or more literally “with others, in a multitude”), imbalances will occur. What if you start it out as a group of 5, each putting in a billion, then the company, without employees, becomes successful, but due to how it worked out, one person was the main brain behind the success so they get a bigger share? Suddenly the company is worth 25 billion, 15bn belonging to the genius, and the rest having 2.5bn stake. How do you regulate that?
Also what if that money is truly for operating costs, because this company is setting up a brand new town, so they’re literally paying dozens of construction crews, establishing shops and whatnot for people to use once they move in, and so on? Do you just take any excess wealth away?
Or do you let them continue operating knowing full well that someone in the company will try to use the operational funds as their personal bank account?
The idea of a wealth limit in an optimal society is good, but in our current imperfect crap, it’s never going to work, because it will put limits to what we can achieve in general.
Mind you I do agree that billionaires shouldn’t exist and should be taxed out of existence but that’s not done with a wealth ceiling.
It is kinda done with a wealth ceiling if you tax the higher wealth more, but yeah let them make infinite money somehow if they are at the top end paying 99% of it back into society.
15bn belonging to the genius
Oof.
Anyway…
The regulation part is absurdly easy: they get a tax bill, they sell their shares, they pay the tax bill.
Operating costs don’t have anything to do with personal wealth. The company pays the operating costs. If the company’s revenue is greater than its costs, it pays dividends or reinvests and in theory, the stock prices goes up. See above.
The problem isn’t the logistics: point gun, take money. That’s pretty straightforward. The problem is ramifications. If billionaires can no longer grow their wealth, what would happen? Well, for one their control over these companies would wane. If Musk can’t own more than a billion, then he’d have to sell a bunch of stock, which means he would have less control over the board, and thus less control over decision-making. But is that such a bad thing? Are the skills and personality that cause a company to go from zero -> public the same ones you want once the company has grown to a large size? Idk, maybe ask Zuckerberg about Oculus Rift and the Metaverse.
I don’t think anyone actually knows what would happen. But we do have a lot of data on what happens if you significantly increase the marginal tax rates for upper income brackets, and it sure seems to benefit society as a whole, but depends on what outcomes you’re targeting. And that doesn’t actually target the ~900 billionaires in the United States because most of them earn money through capital gains rather than regular income.
Man, so interesting. Why do we have to pay those workers to build something that society needs? Is it because the workers need to eat? Why are the workers starving? Is it because the food they need is locked away in a hoard of wealth that only gets distributed by people who own the hoard? Why won’t they just feed people? Oh they only feed people if it means they’ll make a profit?
Hmm. How does a system this cruel stick around? What’s that? 90% of the wealth of the world is owned by a vanishingly small number of people who will own design to feed people if it makes them a profit?
Man. Real “imperfection” you got there. I’m sure we can fix it with some reforms though once we learn more about economics…
Companies shouldn’t be creating towns, period. If we need new cities, their locations and forms should be chosen by the people. By elections. Not by some lone asshole whose only urban planning qualification is that he happens to have a large pile of money.
Towns were just an example of scale - a more realistic example would be, albeit futuristic, is whatever space-faring vessels we’ll build, and I don’t mean Musk and his rocket toys he keeps blowing up, I mean actual interplanetary and deep space ships, which will cost about the same to build as a small town.
Do you want the right to building those to be retained by the government only? Or would you prefer if the right people with the appropriate resources could do it too?
The billionaires ARE the right… they’re the ones with all the money to be pushing those right-wing narratives and the ones that profit most from the success of those narratives. Mussolini himself admitted that Corporatism was a more fitting name for his ideology than Fascism, because it is a merging of the state and corporate power. If the corporations and billionaires didn’t privately capture all those billions of dollars, what, do you think that wealth would just evaporate? No! It’s us doing all the work and making all the sacrifices, we should have control over the profit we generate and a say in what we are willing to sacrifice for it!!
Whatever spacefaring vessels are going to be built should be built at the behest of the people, for the interests of the people. Not by and for whatever person is able to lie, cheat, and steal the most wealth out of our hands. What is the point of building a rocket if all it’s going to do for us is generate another few billion dollars for one guy, who already has more money than god, at everyone else’s expense?? It’s our cake, we are the ones who spilled our blood sweat and tears over it, and we’re gonna just give it away to a guy that’s pinky-promising to drop some crumbs behind him? Fuck that!
Repeat after me: THE INTERESTS OF BILLIONAIRES ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THOSE OF THE PEOPLE.
If a company gets so big that it “needs” billions of dollars to build its own town then that company’s profits and decisions should be split among its stakeholders (i.e. all of its employees).
If someone starts a company then they should be rewarded with profits if it succeeds. Contrary to capitalist arguments. The big brains behind companies don’t do it to make 15 billion dollars. They do it instead to get obscenely rich, and despite our completely warped views with companies like Tesla and Amazon, “obscenely rich” starts in the hundreds of millions of dollars maybe a billion dollars if someone was an idiot.
On top of that there are thousands of examples throughout history that show that people don’t invent things solely to make money and the original big brains behind company innovations were not necessarily profit motivated.
Suddenly the company is worth 25 billion, 15bn belonging to the genius, and the rest having 2.5bn stake.
This doesn’t just happen. How did the value go up so much? Are their sales not taxed? Will the liquidation of this value not be taxed?
The core of literally any anti-billionaire economic policy needs to be the taxing of loans made on potential valuations. With that, the numbers you gave are effectively irrelevant because there’s no more infinite money glitch. They have to liquidate assets to spend money, and must pay taxes on that.
The only thing that I think really needs to change is that it should be harder to get more wealthy past the point where the average person would say that you’re wealthy.
That difficulty spike should be caused by an increase in taxes that you have to pay in order to accrue more wealth so that those taxes can be redirected to the less wealthy.
You can sail as high as you want to go, but you have to raise the tide along with you.
Then your wealthiness would match my ideal of what it means to be wealthy.
This meme implies that a janitor shouldn’t be able to afford a house though.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Capitalism by design will make sure of that, because it is predicated upon infinite and exponential growth, creating artificial inflation. The baseline quality of housing itself may become better overall on average, but capitalism will always and inevitably widen the gulf between those who have capital and those who don’t, it is inherently an unjust system in and of itself and it will never escape that spiral, only exacerbate it.
I am not the guy you replied to, by the way, but poor people will stay poor under capitalism, forever.
Same here (Switzerland) but i disagree: inequality gets worse here too and a ceiling is the effective measure against it. We didn’t fix capitalism, we only slowed it down a bit.
Sadly, initiatives have to explain complex relationships against “but then the rich fucks leave; less jobs!” and so even taxing inheritance over a certain value lost. Yet again.
Guess that’s a weakness of democracies.Social democratic gains in the first world are still built off exploited labor from the global South. Social democracy doesn’t address imperialism.
