A global study led by a researcher at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and published in the journal Scientific Reports finds that economic inequality on a social level cannot be explained by bad choices among the poor nor by good decisions among the rich. Poor decisions were the same across all income groups, including for people who have overcome poverty.
It CAN be explained by the ultra rich controlling everything though.
Our tax dollars get funneled into bailouts and subsidies for corporations and endless wars with countries that pose no threat to us.
I was talking to a friend that is an economist,he is more right leaning. As we both come from a socialist country. And we have seen the bad things of the left,but living in America I have seen way too much of the right too. There’s this notion(that I don’t agree with) that inequality it’s just a byproduct of a healthy economic system. Because the logic is that,if we don’t give economic entities everything on a silver platter (giving them bailouts and letting them fuck people) they will throw a tantrum and economy will colapse.
If too much power is held by too few people, it becomes more risky to defy them, but it’s a problem of allowing capitalism to run unfettered towards its natural conclusion of sucking all the wealth up into the hands of the most rutheless, heartless, and lucky (their beneficiaries).
Aggressively breaking up monopolies would help. I’d also argue for legal limits on how much the CEO/highest paid staff can earn relative to their lowest paid. Also, economic programs that favor lifting new people up rather than supporting the existing success aristocracy.
I was actually talking to him about that…while I understand that socialism it’s not achievable due to human nature. And that objectively speaking capitalism is the economic system that causes the most grow of net happiness and abundance…it seems like on a large enough scale it tends to self destruct? Maybe a more balanced approach might bring success on the long run
Yeah, that’s generally how I understand it. Capitalism works fairly well when everyone is on an even playing field, but then some people find ways to exploit human psychology to hoard wealth beyond the value they contribute. When money (capital) is considered a proxy for personal value/status, having large amounts of money grants power over others and the ability to bully your way to the top if you’re cruel enough.
So we need to implement regulation that keeps capitalism in check by ensuring access to opportunity. Wealth taxes to avoid unconscionable amounts of accumulation. Guarantees of access to affordable (non-debt burdened) higher education, affordable healthcare, and affordable housing. Basically, the moral underpinnings of socialist ideology can be used to give capitalism a conscience by keeping the end game at bay. But that requires us to continuously battle against the greedy, power-hungry monied interests who will fight those regulations (and have defeated them, on many occasions).
This might be a tangent but I have actually been reading “hell’s paradise” and been introduced to the idea of “the middle way” of Taoism. And it does make a lot of sense to me. Because I have seen the extreme left and I’m starting to see what extreme right could be. That the logical conclusion I get is a middle mix way. But I do see how in human nature it’s hard to grasp this concept, because we tend to be more extremist and black or white tipe of thing.
Still come on, individuals should be held responsible to some extent otherwise some will use it as scapegoats to indulge their selfish endeavours.
We acknowledge that this dependency system should change, it’s regressive & just gonna keep destroying future generations & our planet.
For contexts:
Activist #MMT - podcast
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/activist-mmt-podcast/id1484407459
https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/activist-mmt-podcast/2927396