• samokosik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Usually the surreal ones such as extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.

      Basically all actions that look very good on paper but at the same time are extremely expensive.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.

        Ooooooooo scary!

        Totally the same thing as literally exterminating entire groups of people based on characteristics they were born with.

        In all seriousness though, you should look at what Finland has done regarding “public housing,” and how great it has been for them. Spoiler alert, they’re actually really nice, and affordable. Because nobody is looking to maximize a profit.

        But please, let me know how “Finland is much smaller than the US, therefore impossible.”

        • samokosik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well yes. They can go for it because they considering their size, they have a strong economy. They are literally the 3rd most prosperous country in the world.

          If you can afford it, go for it but firstly you need to make the money.

          • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            And how do you think they became prosperous? You have to give people the chance to spend money to have a growing economy, otherwise everyone’s keeping money for later and nothings flowing.

            • samokosik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Because they have a strong service sector that produces revenue and also good high-technology manufacturing. You make money by producing revenue not from sponsoring everyone’s life. Sure, you can invest in people at the beginning but they need to start making money for your investment to pay off.

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                You make money by producing revenue not from sponsoring everyone’s life.

                Nobody is “sponsoring” anybody’s life.

                And you’re just wrong. “Producing revenue” helps corporations, it does nothing for 99.9% of American citizens. I can’t believe we still have to debunk this supply-side horse shit.

                Over and over again, Scandinavian countries (and others) have shown us that, if you provide the very basics for human survival (e.g. shelter, health care, food) and perhaps some basic services needed for gainful employment like internet and public transportation, people are not only far happier and healthier, but they are also more productive members of society. It’s almost as if it’s nearly impossible to be productive when you are constantly stressed over the very basics for human survival. Wild.

                There. Is. Literally. No. Down. Side. Unless. You. Are. A. Billionaire.

                And even then… Oh no, you have to be a $100 millionaire instead of. $3 billionaire. How will you survive 🙄

                • samokosik@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  First of all, everyone can gain from corporations’ successes. It literally takes 20 minutes to buy their stocks.

                  Second of all, Scandinavian countries have quite a good model. However, they also have very strong economies to fund it.

                  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    First of all, everyone can gain from corporations’ successes

                    ahahahahahahahahahahahaha… that’s a good one dude. Didn’t expect such a laugh this early. No. Just no.

                    Supply-side economics (AKA trickle-down) does. not. work. Frankly, there is nothing you can say here that will counteract the decades of real world data we have to prove that no, lowering taxes for corporations absolutely DOES NOT help the working class. It does the exact opposite by enlarging the pay gap between the people who run the company, and the people who actually do the fucking work.

                    I’d like to believe you’re smarter than that…

                    Second of all, Scandinavian countries have quite a good model. However, they also have very strong economies to fund it.

                    True, you’d probably need to be maybe the most robust economy in the world to do that… Oh wait. That’s us…

      • jorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        lol yes ok very dangerous and equivalent to fascism understood

        my opinion of centrists has completely flipped, I totally get why “spending too much” and “enforcing an ethnic hierarchy” are the same degree of evil

        snark aside: you should reflect about what exactly money is, what it’s used for and what it represents, and how a government spending its own legal tender differs from household finances.