• nova_ad_vitum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Your comments is literally just ad-hominem too bruh.

    • samokosik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      I have just pointed out that both sides have extreme views that are dangerous.

      • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        What extreme views are coming from the left side?

        The right side is fascism, the left side is plans to raise the monthly minimum wage, impose price ceilings on essential foods, electricity, gas and petrol, repeal Macron’s deeply unpopular decision to raise the retirement age to 64, and invest massively in the green transition and public services.

        How are those ‘exteme’ and ‘dangerous’?

        • samokosik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          Exactly those are the views you mentioned. All these are extremely expensive and financing all of them without the debt increase is practically impossible. Combine it with almost no relevant plans how to improve economy and you have got quite a dangerous situation. You cannot just spend money without earning it.

          • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Raising the standard of living and improving the purchasing power of the individual DOES improve the economy because it enables more people to spend more on foods and services. They are financed by raising taxes on the ultra wealthy and corporations. The money is already earned, the difference it whether it gets pocketed and horded by executives or recirculated into the economy by improving the standard of living of the populace

            • samokosik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              3 months ago

              Those ultra wealthy people and corporations are not that stupid. If they see they can exist and pay less in a different country, they will just move. Everyone will be happy apart from the country which rose the taxes.

              Of course that rising living standards improves economy but not in a way where you just sponsor good housing for your whole population.

                • samokosik@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Well sure they don’t flee New York, California and other places where despite high taxes they can still make large amounts of money. Simply because most of development is there. If they can make 50k a month and pay 50% taxes in NY (just an example) compared to 10k and 10% taxes somewhere else (they would just stay).

                  However, this is not California/NY and you can easily check what high taxes do here. People register companies in Ireland and Cyprus, so they can pay the least taxes possible. Then, due to european union being european union, they can operate in their home country.

                  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    We’ve already established that taxes on the rich/corporations that are used to improve the standard of living of the citizens of the country does increase development and stimulate the economy. Do you have any sources to back up your views? Because so far they don’t seem based on any real world data

              • jorp@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Let the capitalists flee, easier than rounding them up. The workers will still be there, and the workers are the economy

                • samokosik@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Yes, let the capitalists flee, so there is no one to pay the taxes. That seems like a very wise plan.

                  In addition, every company needs just workers. Management, engineers and so on are practically useless.

                  This would surely work very well.

                  Hint: You can actually see how brilliantly it worked during 1940s-1990s in the countries under Warsaw pact.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That’s not how modern monetary policy works, by the way. The US dollar has a ton of power worldwide for many reasons, so we determine what our money is worth, period. This is why every time the US government has spent money on “demand side” solutions (stimulus checks, etc.) they have provided nothing but upside.

            This little trick that capitalists don’t want you to know about: it’s all bullshit. They want us to keep injecting cash into failing banks rather than just paying for people’s garbage mortgages.

            We owe nothing to nobody because those debts will never be paid (who would they even be paid to?).

            There is zero practical reason (beyond “oh no, billionaires and multinational corporations need to pay taxes wahhh”) that we cannot spend as much money as we like on every social program we like. Prove me wrong (or just read about “Modern Monetary Theory” as I’m not an economist).

            • samokosik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Have you heard about what happened to greece?

              For example, one third of population lived in poverty (in Greece) due to economic crisis. Is that not enough to take responsible money management seriously?

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Greece doesn’t have the largest economy in the world. Their currency isn’t the Petrodollar like USD is. The world economy runs on USD. I don’t think you understand just how much power and freedom that affords us with regards to spending. Not your fault because it’s been hammered into us for decades by “fiscal conservatives.” But the actual reality is that we have far more control over these things than those people want you to think.

                The only way spending on social programs could ever possibly tank the US economy is if billionaires and corporations purposely did so out of spite, and desire to return to the times when they could get away with being robber barons (AKA right now). And unfortunately, it would probably work.

                That said, even if you don’t believe that Modern Monetary Theory is real (again, you should read about it from actual economists, not me), we could very easily take care of every person in this country, legal or not, if we even modestly reduced our “defense” budget, and properly taxed corporations and the uber-wealthy.