Shit, is it stay golden? I’ve been saying stay gold

For real man

We should subsidized that shit

How is it not a poll tax?

Forgot about that! Who’s got it?

Didn’t see your post before mine, but yeah, you covered it well.

So capitalism is okay because the non-capitalist things are supposed to keep it in check?

Yeah if you talk to this reaganbot for a while or starts to offload responsibilities upon the institutions the ultra wealthy commandeer. Is happening in real time in the US.

But money is power and power is expressed through regulatory capture. It’s not right, but there will always be pressure towards wealth dictating the market structure and rules. Ultra wealth inequality dismantles the systems you expect to ensure externalities are considered.

In any case, yes, we agree that markets often fail on considerations of important externalities. Furthermore, we agree that government has a role in correcting that.

I believe you are constructing strawmen and false dichotomies. Wealth is not just economic power, it’s power, period. If concentration is good, why not embrace it to the full extent? Is the current distribution of wealth appropriate (in, based on the OP, the US), or was it better 50 yrs ago?

I did not say equal distribution or no incentives. I did not argue against the entrepreneur. The current situation is extreme inequality. We are nowhere near risk of losing the incentive. This reduces quality of life for almost all due to hoarding of resources. This also stifles the entrepreneur. So much of the fruits of labor is directed towards so few.

Investment is not limited to individuals with massive wealth. There is no reason investment cannot occur by combining resources of many instead of few. By and large, large amounts of money seeks to generate more money. I believe it’s far better to have broad ownership. I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity). People will still act that way, but I’m convinced that broad ownership will improve that aspect.

Why do a small amount of individuals need to be the gatekeepers on so much wealth?

Thanks for the follow up. The notion is totally at odds with their actions and efforts, and it’s kind of disheartening to hear their reasoning. I shouldn’t be surprised though.

I would really like to know why your American colleagues think that.

Same here my friend. My little brother’s funeral had me raging.

No, I did not know that. Is that relevant?

No, first time. I thought I did understand what you were doing and was having some fun.

I understood your post history fine. I mean, I don’t remember it but I only looked when I realized you might not be doing a bit. It didn’t look like nonsense.

No it’s not that. I just didn’t understand your post

Yeah…

Were we not contributing excellent training data? Just me?

E: well shit, I looked at your post history and that’s not what you were doing, was it? Your comment just broke my brain somehow and I thought it was intentionally gibberish that almost seemed related to the topic. Maybe I caught the brain worms, idk

“If this is a sailboat but if sand is unglued pole”, then fighting fit

If hemoglobin does not rise in the East, oopsies me.

Do you think he’s turtle-y enough, for the turtle club?

Nominative determinism