Political Memes

5426 readers

2140 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

rjc@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

WrenFeathers@lemmy.world

1418

Mom has a Bachelor of Facebook. (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

144 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Pretty much my thinking, but it shouldn’t even be necessary to mandate “limit consolidation of resources”. We do need wealth to be attainable, as the driving factor of capitalism, however the other factors you list would have the limiting affect if they were implemented.

Also, one of the goals of such a government needs to be “for the benefit of its citizens”. Every choice of a well-run government to regulate capitalism needs to be “for the benefit of its citizens”, and most failures in actual governments are when they don’t follow this

[–] Schmoo 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The main problem I see with this approach is regulatory capture. If you allow individuals to consolidate resources even slightly then they begin to form 2 distinct classes, the owners and the workers, where one is economically advantaged. Even in a democratic society that economic advantage allows the owning class to exert greater influence and nudge things in their favor. This has a snowball effect until you end up where we are now, a bourgeois democratic government that functions exclusively for the owning class.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s all a matter of degree: it’s the excessive inequality that results in excessive advantage. I’m all for reducing the inequality gap (a lot) but there does need to be one for capitalism to work.

As a prime example with income taxes in the US, most people prefer it be progressive.

Several decades ago, the top bracket was 90%, which surely reduced inequality without removing the wealth incentive, although I don’t know the reality
Today we do have graduated brackets so it appears to be progressive, however to a much lower degree that does nothing to reduce excessive wealth inequality. More importantly the tax code has become excessively complicated and full of loopholes for the wealthy such that the reality is REgressive. Our current tax system INcreases wealth inequality. That’s just wrong and violates any pretense of being for the benefit of all citizens

[–] Schmoo 2 points 3 months ago

I’m all for reducing the inequality gap (a lot) but there does need to be one for capitalism to work.

And that is precisely why capitalism should be abolished. Any gap will grow, the only way to stop it is to close it and hold it shut. Any amount of inequality is injustice.

Several decades ago, the top bracket was 90%, which surely reduced inequality without removing the wealth incentive

And then the wealth incentive overcame the tax pressure and reversed it. The wealth incentive is perverse, there is no reason to preserve it.