Then we need to get a new one. This one's broken.
This is seriously, LITERALLY, the solution they are proposing. We need more people at the very bottom rung, homeless and helpless, for our economy to thrive. Or... OR... just tax the wealthy more. You know... that. The one thing they don't ever want to do. And by "they" I mean both parties, unfortunately. Outside of a few outliers (who are all solely in the democratic party), we've got a two party system that both think a good solution is "some people dying on the streets now and then", as if it's necessary, as if it's just an unavoidable fact of life, as if we can't do better.
And they wonder why my generation and younger are rejecting capitalism. This is why. If this system demands literal blood sacrifice, it's evil.
(6th April 2023, 11:37 AM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: [ -> ]Then we need to get a new one. This one's broken.
This is seriously, LITERALLY, the solution they are proposing. We need more people at the very bottom rung, homeless and helpless, for our economy to thrive. Or... OR... just tax the wealthy more. You know... that. The one thing they don't ever want to do. And by "they" I mean both parties, unfortunately. Outside of a few outliers (who are all solely in the democratic party), we've got a two party system that both think a good solution is "some people dying on the streets now and then", as if it's necessary, as if it's just an unavoidable fact of life, as if we can't do better.
And they wonder why my generation and younger are rejecting capitalism. This is why. If this system demands literal blood sacrifice, it's evil.
Is John Stewart okay? LOL
Look it's not easy making green.
I think... there was a misstep somewhere here.
(6th April 2023, 11:37 AM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: [ -> ]Then we need to get a new one. This one's broken.
This is seriously, LITERALLY, the solution they are proposing. We need more people at the very bottom rung, homeless and helpless, for our economy to thrive. Or... OR... just tax the wealthy more. You know... that. The one thing they don't ever want to do. And by "they" I mean both parties, unfortunately. Outside of a few outliers (who are all solely in the democratic party), we've got a two party system that both think a good solution is "some people dying on the streets now and then", as if it's necessary, as if it's just an unavoidable fact of life, as if we can't do better.
And they wonder why my generation and younger are rejecting capitalism. This is why. If this system demands literal blood sacrifice, it's evil.
Economics is a complicated field and I definitely have never been any good at it, but there apparently is an economic case to be made for how the very low jobless rate and such help increase inflation, I guess. I don't think that the goal is for more people to be homeless though, but for more people to have to look for another job or something like that. I have trouble imagining how homeless people would be good for the economy... more like the opposite, right?
On the note of homelessness, in these last few years as housing prices have skyrocketed both for renting and for owning, it seems like more people are homeless now. It's pretty sad and has been a significant challenge for cities, there often aren't good solutions...
Taxing the rich significantly more is certainly a fantastic idea that we badly need to do. I don't know what that would do to the economy but given the massive wealth gap between rich and poor, it'd probably be overall good. People should be able to be rich if successful, but the disparity between rich and poor is much too large now.
ABF, neoliberals and conservatives alike are in favor of solving inflation whenever it crops up by increasing joblessness. This was a common policy in both Bush, Obama, and Trump's administration. It's the method rather than the goal, but if that's the method, find another method, full stop. They really DO push that policy however, and the man Jon Stewart is interviewing should be familiar to you.
They are literally pushing FOR an increased rate of unemployment.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-ma...022-09-08/
Once you tip over this log you find out it's been rotting from the inside for years.
As I said, I've heard of the 'we need to increase jobless numbers in order to slow down inflation' argument, but I am pretty sure that their goal is not to increase homelessness much but instead to make people look for new jobs. I don't get economics enough to remember offhand why they say that high employment is bad, but it clearly is something the Fed believes...
I agree with the goal of slowing down inflation, the rate of increase of basic good such as food and housing is horrible. How do we do that? I don't know. "Let's hope more people get fired, that'd be good for the economy" seems like an odd way to reduce inflation, but I'm not good enough at economics to know if it'd work or not... but given that employment is generally probably more positive than negative it's not something they should try to cause, I would think.
Also, even though obviously much higher taxes on the rich are necessary, that's not something the Fed can do. Only congress can change tax law and the Republicans in the House sure aren't going to do that. Basically all the Fed can do is adjust the one lending rate they have control over and see what that does to the economy...
(12th April 2023, 10:44 AM)A Black Falcon Wrote: [ -> ]As I said, I've heard of the 'we need to increase jobless numbers in order to slow down inflation' argument, but I am pretty sure that their goal is not to increase homelessness much but instead to make people look for new jobs. I don't get economics enough to remember offhand why they say that high employment is bad, but it clearly is something the Fed believes...
I agree with the goal of slowing down inflation, the rate of increase of basic good such as food and housing is horrible. How do we do that? I don't know. "Let's hope more people get fired, that'd be good for the economy" seems like an odd way to reduce inflation, but I'm not good enough at economics to know if it'd work or not... but given that employment is generally probably more positive than negative it's not something they should try to cause, I would think.
Also, even though obviously much higher taxes on the rich are necessary, that's not something the Fed can do. Only congress can change tax law and the Republicans in the House sure aren't going to do that. Basically all the Fed can do is adjust the one lending rate they have control over and see what that does to the economy...
Well if that's your thought, I suppose we can start by firing you. Sorry to be so harsh, but that's really all it comes down to. If you think ANY section of society is worth throwing out for the good of the rest, you need to first consider yourself "the surplus". If that stings, if it makes you angry to think of yourself being cast down for everyone else's sake, this argument stops right here. No one deserves to be cast out. Whether it would actually work is completely irrelevant.
And yes, they absolutely, unequivocally mean what they say they mean. Don't try to put a lighter spin on this. They want more joblessness, and in our society that means homelessness. The homelessness is, in fact, the point. THAT is the part that "stimulates the economy" in their model. That's the argument they're making. You are giving them too much credit because you don't want to think that perhaps there are cruel people making decisions in power, but that's the reality. They want us to "take our medicine" (exact quote from Fox there) and they know it will be "painful but necessary". It's just that they don't want to do the suffering themselves. They don't want to be the ones losing their jobs.
This is stuff Dickens wrote about. They're arguing that this would "decrease the surplus population" and of course it takes a ghost of Christmas presents to come along and point out that to many, THEY are the surplus population.