MOD NOTE: BE NICE.
It's ok to disagree, it's not ok to insult or threaten other posters with violence.
Billionaires the original welfare queens.
What the UAW is doing here is fighting for all workers. This sets precedents that ripple across all industries. What formed the UAW back in 1937 took some balls, and so does this.
It's not communism to fight for dignity and a living wage. We're practically fighting for some more table scraps, but the rich are acting like we're threatening social fabric.
Go and get it Shawn, this is exactly what we all need right now. Support the UAW.
In the last 20 years, we've seen the most rapid rise in productivity since the industrial revolution, and just like in the wake of the industrial revolution, there was massive worker exploitation that led to reforms and eventually unionization that ushered in a golden age of labor in America where workers were fairly compensated for the work they provided, so much so that it was easy for a salaryman to support a nuclear family on his single paycheck.
Since then, the business owner class has been working hard to dismantle unions while refusing to pay their fair share of the massive profit windfalls to the bottom rung workers. We are long overdue for sweeping multi-industry unionization effort. Only then will we start seeing something more than just table scraps.
Fighting for dignity actually is literally communism. It's capitalist propaganda that has you convinced otherwise.
I mean, I can see a utopian vision of Communism where dignity is forefront, but I've also seen where it's dystopian. Correct me if I'm wrong but the basis is to each according to their need and from each based on their abilities. Dignity isn't mentioned, but the happiness and contentment of all is the goal so I suppose it's inferred but not specified.
Either way, it doesn't have to be viewed with any kind of social opposition. If we keep following the slippery slope of late game capitalism, who's to say companies don't just purchase legislation that re-establishes full on slavery? We have a fucked up oligarch system, and moments like this where workers unite is a good thing in any system. Free market my ass, and this is a moment where arguing for semantics is a side-discussion, for now it's us against the oligarchs.
You don't seem to understand that your distinction between the theory of communism, and communism as practiced, are both equally valid and accepted uses of the word. One is a theory, one created reeducation camps and killed millions of their own people. It is not capitalism that convinced me of this.
Reminder that some unions have merch you can buy to help support their workers during strikes. This one doesn't, unfortunately. But always check. I have some damn cool looking tshirts for other labor movements (Rail, Starbucks, Truck haulers, etc).
You can sign their petition here:
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/big-3-ceo-petition-1?source=standwithuspage
I work at the corporate headquarters of a company that provides contract services to industrial plants. Not related to the car industry, but I literally just had a meeting today with some folks from HR to add a way to our central system to track what plants our employees have unionized at. The general tone was "oh crap we have union workers now, how do we not accidentally break the law because we're quickly seeing more and more of our workforce unionize"
Fuck yea, love to see militant labor fighting for what they need
Even China knows this. Give the hard working people a better job than mom and dad had and they won't rebel.
The people who are rolling in their next billion have forgotten what happens when you take that away.
China is about to find out as well, they have something like a 30% new-grad unemployment rate, and Pooh Bear is on a bootstraps kick saying that social protections encourage laziness.
They're on even thinner ice than the US.
They are in the economic industrial boom that already happened to western countries decades ago. The problem is that eventually all booms end
That is just buying into accepting the current model where the rich can have it all at the expense of the poor. The model is the problem not the amount we have to distribute.
That has been the US and western Europe strategy. Give back just enough so that people don't think they have enough to win by changing the existing order
Apparently these billionaires vote & elect the folks who want to arm all of these workers you speak of. Sound logic if you ask me
Well nothing has happened, what is being asked of them is less than what they've taken. Worse case scenario is they give back some of the stolen goods.
But this is the same as a fine for breaking the law, they made more than they lost as a result so this is all factored in.
Holy based, I didn't know there were any unions with a backbone left in America
The UAW has always been pushing for Americans as a whole. Hats off to them.
Yeah, but Fain is the first democratically elected UAW leader (prior leadership was chosen by delegations and was fraught with racketeering and embezzlement) and it shows.
✊
Wasn't it that same episode where Rom basically says word for word that he doesn't support unions because one day he might own Quark's bar and then he'll be able to oppress people too? What a great show, some people dislike the ferengi episodes but they're some of my favorites in the series.
🖖
I vote for wrecking the rich's yachts. There's even a great capitalist reason to do it: the companies that build them might make new sales! Win-win!
When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.
It's like trickle down economics, but we gotta shoot some holes in the water tower to make it trickle down.
Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person. As craftsmen, they could have improved the lives of tens of thousands in their community instead. As engineers, they could have built products serving millions.
Not to mention the natural resources used for one person's benefit.
There's nothing positive about super yachts (and mansions, private jets,...) being built. Don't let the flow of money confuse you.
This is actually an example in The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith considers whether a hooligan smashing a window is a benefit to society because it creates work for the glazier.
Smith concluded that no, it isn't a net benefit because the glazier could have made a new window instead.
However, given that megayachts are net negative to society, I'm not sure how he'd view this case.
Money goes from the billionaires to the millionaires that owns the yacht companies 😅
The argument is sloppy.
The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.
If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.
The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.
When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.
People who think the rich just have vaults full of money are so fucking ridiculous.
Poor people sit on cash. Poor people hide cash in their house. Almost the entirety of any rich person's wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.
Do a new Boston Tea Party except this time we launch barrels of tea at yachts.
That's red hot commie stuff right there. I like it :)
Isn't that what they want you to think? Throwing around words like communist and making it seem like a bad thing to share wealth?
Exactly. Unions exist in Liberal and Social Democracies, too. They want to keep us on this Neoliberal path, because it's so very exploitable. Unions are just a drop of democracy, but for your workplace, or sometimes renting and transit systems.
There is nothing communist about that. He's not advocating abolishing private ownership. Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.
The free market doesn't exist in a communist economy. Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers. This eliminates workers' leverage over employers.
There is nothing communist about that.
Seeking a new economy, based on the challenge that the current one serves the owning class, is the very essence of the communist movement.
He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership.
Billionaires are the owners, and they are being challenged, as well as the system that serves them.
Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.
No. Markets confer freedom only to those who enter them already having the more advantageous position.
The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy.
You previously gave an accurate definition of communism. Markets are not specifically or fundamentally rejected by communism, even though many would wish to see their eventual abolition.
Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers.
Communism seeks direct control of the economy by workers.
This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.
Workers have no leverage over employers, because employers already own everything. Workers have only the power to withhold their labor, though doing so carries great risk.
Image Transcription:
X/Twitter post by user Teddy Ostrow @TeddyOstrow reading '"In their economy, workers live paycheck to paycheck while the billionaires buy another yacht... So we're gonna wreck their economy cuz it only works for the billionaire class," says @UAW prez Shawn Fain in Detroit.'
Attached is an image of UAW president Shawn Fain speaking passionately at a targeted strike rally against the Detroit Big Three automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis).
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
I'm happy to see this transcription "service" here on Lemmy. Thank YOU!
Thank you! Hopefully I will one day have most people doing it themselves so I have less to do.
You are my favorite person today.
Thank you!
I like this Shawn. I really do. He's saying the words and doing the actions. Go Shawn! Go!
The more I hear about this guy, the more I like him.
Why not? Megacorps and billionaires wreck the economy all the time, and exploit it for their favor.
Why not let the poor and worker class wreck it for once.
Set the whole goddamn thing on fire, and throw the rich into it.
Never forget when people were smuggling eggs from Mexico. We used to make fun of the USSR for that shit.
In USSR smuggling of food was only between cities and not cities. Usually from Moscow and
St. PetesburgLeningrad....Lemingrad))))
Maybe we can get the gd bailout for once? Call it payback on their overdue loans?
Half the Republicans lost their shit over COVID stimulus checks, so I doubt that will ever happen sadly.
Workers of the world, unite!
Fucking legend. Hats off to him and the UAW
That is something I wonder about. Inflation makes the poor poorer but when asked, economists are like "trust us, inflation is good".
A small amount is good. Deflation makes it so not spending money is more beneficial. The longer you wait to spend the more the money is worth. This causes fewer products and services to be purchased, which pays for wages. Inflation makes the opposite true. The longer you wait to spend your money the less it's worth. It encourages spending, not saving. Inflation that outstrips increases to pay is obviously very bad though.
Note that a critical part of that equation is that wages are included in the inflationary trend.
But other than that explicit detail, that's spot on. Ultimately money is a "trick" we use to influence our productive behavior. So a slightly creeping number works best to make the "money" move instead of sit still, and the whole point of the mathematical model is that the things need to move around.
With all of the credit balances being carried, I question the whole "people will just wait instead of spending because it will be more financially advantageous". I'm also not so sure we really need an economic system that encourages and depends on increased consumption. It would be nice if we had a system that could handle inflation, stagnation, and deflation without imploding on itself.
To me, the biggest factor is that it means debt burdens get lighter over time, assuming you are at least covering interest (if not then interest will outpace inflation, though even the growing debt will be cheaper over time vs what it would be without inflation). Oh, also assuming wages match inflation, which is the other big factor. Your employer can save money over time just by being stingy with raises.
This is just plain wrong. The majority of people don't get to "decide" to spend/save, they live paycheck to paycheck. The people that can make that decision are actually incentivized to NOT spend but to "invest" (aka loan) because interest rates are higher, and thus get better returns.
Inflation is really a wealth transfer from the poorest to the wealthy since wages don't keep up with inflation.
Now you can figure out why deflation is considered a bad thing by mainstream media.
Currency isn't worth a shit cause it ain't money. Money should be out of all stable saving of value. Gold is money, precious metals are money, diamonds are money. Currencies are worthless shit created to infinity by banks and hold together by enforcement of governments which are deep in debt to those bank so cannot do a fucking shit about that. All of our tax money goes straight to banks.
Yea, because its good for them 😅
Inflation reduces the value of money at the bank: the money saved as well as the money borrowed.
In an ideal world, wages are indexed on inflation (way of calculating inflation in this context can be discussed), and inflation is kept above present targets levels (central banks try to keep it at 2% these days).
That makes your debts easier to reimburse, and limits returns on savings. Have you ever noticed that people who keep talking about the "value of work" actually push for low wages and no or low taxes on capital gains, so actually wants the capital to make more money than work?
A low inflation allows big money to hoard more and more. Higher inflation means money that's not actively contributing to the economy will lose its value over time, and that's exactly what you, at the bottom of the ladder, want (and considering top of the ladder is hundreds of billions of $, ever 6 figures employees are bottom of the ladder).
Too high inflation leads to an uncontrolled spiral. Deflation is also very bad (no investment will ever happen if your money just appreciate by doing nothing). But the 2% target is not to protect you. It's made for money to make more money.
But about the link between wages and inflation: what we have today is a situation where we let cost of life dramatically outpace wage growth. So where did the inflation come from? Profits! That needs to be rebalanced.
From 1945 to the early 80's (before the €), France and some other countries minmum wages were indexed on inflation. If doing so would instantly crash an economy, we would have noticed...
Inflation makes debt worth less. Generally the working class buys homes and cars by borrowing money.
Of course banks will charge more interest to compensate for this so a high amount of inflation isn't good. Deflation is bad because the banks are going to continue charging interest even while the value of the debt principle is increasing.
So ideally you want a small amount of inflation so there's some wiggle room before dipping into deflation territory.
There's too much inflation so central banks have to raise interest rates which makes people less likely to borrow money which shrinks the money supply. This is how inflation is controlled, but also not a good situation as it can lead to a recession. So it's a delicate balancing act.
Economics is called the dismal science for a reason. Nothing is intrinsically "good" there's a cost to everything. And no socialism isn't some cheat code that allows people to escape the dismal realities of economics. Best you can ever do is balance things well enough that everyone can have a decent life.
Hell yeah
hell yeah fuck the oligarchy
At this point I am all for a plan that will fuck me over but takes them down with me. Let's do this shit.
When you have no roof over your head and it rains, just make a tarp from the skin of a landlord.
Let's goooooo 🔨
Only problem with this is that this doesn’t even hurt the ultra rich - every catastrophe is just a new investment opportunity for them. E.g. after Brexit they just moved their money and businesses out of the UK, leaving the poor schlebs who live there to deal with it.
Okay, let's do nothing then... /s
If conditions are unlivable for too many people, that's bad and it calls for a re-negotiation of everything. It also bears reminding today's leisure class/ultra-wealthy that part of the basis for their existence as such was always a trade-off between them paying their workers enough to live with dignity and the metaphorical torches and pitchforks and guillotines staying in mothballs
"For the fired auto workers Who were twisted, tricked and robbed To the peasant in Guatemala In a sweatshop got your job And she can't feed her family On the pennies that she makes Meanwhile the crime rate's rising Up and down the Great Lake states
Like vegetables left in the field The signatures smell rotten On the contracts and the deeds That push the race down to the bottom As they load the rubber bullets As they fire another round I'm heading into the tear gas Dig in man, hold your ground
For Joe Hill and Cesar Chavez Who fought in their own time For our brothers and our sisters Up and down that picket line For the unnamed and unnumbered Who struggle brave and long For the union men and women Standing up and standing strong"
Tom Morello/The Nightwatchman - Union Song
On my commute home yesterday I encountered a "wide load" convoy that was hauling a millionaire's yacht down the highway. Not a mega-yacht, just a yacht. I don't care that it was just a millionaire's yacht, I felt compelled to roll down the window and give it the bird.
I used to work for a guy who inherited the family company. He used every single loop hole and dirty trick to pay his employees as little as possible, no benefits or insurance... Nothing.
He found out I was turning 40. His advice to me was "a man's age should never be a higher number than the footage of his boat".
He didn't understand that I don't own a boat, didn't own a house, didn't even own my car.
Hell, even if you can afford it, a boat is a bit of a PITA.
Any boat is a PITA, but the longer the boat, the worse it gets. But it doesn't get more 'fun', perhaps even getting less fun. A 20 foot boat with a decent engine can move nice and quick and manuever. Big boat is basically just a less convenient hangout that happens to be on the water.
Based
Hell yeah brother
I think a perspective shift is necessary.
"Destroy the economy" is about sabotage.
"Work for each other and against wealthy investors" would result in a smaller economy, but the focus is on the positive thing built, instead of just sabotage.
"Smaller" if you're a billionaire. When they say "the economy" just insert "rich people's wealth". It wouldn't be a smaller economy in reality, because what drives a healthy economy is people spending money. Rich people don't spend money, regular people do. Regular people getting paid more and having a larger piece of the pie, counterintuitively means there's more pie.
Thank you.
The problem is wealth concentrating in too few hands. And those hands are greedily reaching for more and more wealth.
We simply need systems to redirect the wealth from the 0.1%.
would result in a smaller economy
Only to the extent that withheld labor during a strike affects it. Once the strike(s) are over, an economy that puts more spending money in more pockets will be a bigger one
It turns out that the size of the economy is related to how well-distributed the wealth in it is. If most of the money goes into wealthy pockets and everybody else lives in a sort of poverty-imposed austerity, that depresses a lot of that economy's potential.
What the UAW are after is not a smaller economy, but a more-robust (likely larger) one that includes more people in it.
Is it a smart move? No. But it's the only one that could work
If it's the last move you have left, it's the only smart move.
We've tried playing by their rules, and the game is rigged against us. So now we make a new game.
It's smart only when you're pushed right up against the wall. Which, given the cost of living and wages now, this is.
Where do I sign up
At your local union hall!
If you aren't rich, you have already signed up
Based
Way to go. Bring them down on their knees. Force them to share. They've proven they will never share the wealth with the workers unless forced to.
That... is a very...VERY BAD IDEA.
Billionaires have enough money to survive an economic crash without batting an eyelid. Do you?
Most billionaires aren't billionaires in cash. If the market crashes, so do they. Now they might be reduced to "only" a hundred million or so but that can be catastrophic when your personal finances depend on billions in stock backing up a series of long term rotating loans.
They wanted to use the market to exploit the people. But that makes them vulnerable in a way rich people didn't used to be vulnerable.
Yeah if we keep basing everything on money! We need to go back to bartering
Controversial: how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?
Rent would be cheaper if renters would unionize and wouldn't spend above an agreed on limit.
It's so hard to coordinate that only some workers can ask billionaires for better deals. Why? Why is not everybody ashamed that they cannot coordinate with their neighbors?
Roman's walked out of town once a year to remind the elite of their value. The west models itself after the Roman Republic but tries to skip on the hard parts.
how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?
They live six to a room.
Can confirm. I once had an apartment in NC. I was the only white guy in the complex. Everyone else was Latino. I had a one bedroom apartment. I was the ONLY single occupant in my building. The apartment below me was occupied by a guy, his wife, his infant child, his mother and at least one cousin. They were still the most gracious people I'd ever lived amongst. When his daughter was born they had a bigass cookout and invited everyone in our complex. That was the day that I learned I was the only white guy, and it was an amazing experience. I ended up letting some of the guys crash in my apartment while I was on the road, and I always came back to a clean house and a fridge full of leftovers.
Unfortunately I had to move back to OH after a year, but I'd go back to NC in a heartbeat if the situation allowed.
They live six to a room.
And they're not sending that much back home.
how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?
They live six to a room.
...and the rest of their family spends those dollars on a 3rd world cost of living.
The west models itself after the Roman Republic but tries to skip on the hard parts.
I don't know about "the West" -- literally most any western developed country besides the US understands what the "Bread" part of Bread & Circuses means. Labor laws, universal healthcare, paid vacation, paid parental leave, election laws designed to encourage voting and discourage election manipulation -- all of these things are, in some form or another, part of nearly every western developed country besides the USA.
how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?
Migrants are not sending money to strangers in their home countries. They are supporting families, just the same as those who are not migrants and live with their families.
Don't be shocked when the billionaires get bailouts to the tune of 10X what they lost and we get fucked whenever you decide to do that.
How does the working class not realise that the wealthy are the sodden bitch in a bog handing out the sword? Jeeebus
The amount of well meaning idiots upvoting this who dont seem to grasp who actually suffers when this happens is depressing.
Actually I think most people know that everyone will suffer, but the billionaires will suffer much more.
Perhaps the "well meaning idiots" are wise enough to realize how much they will suffer unless "this happens".
I'd rather not be sent into poverty like in 1930s Germany tyvm. The "winner takes all" mentality though needs to go. The US especially has a lottery winning mentality.
Right, the economy isn't something that supports the life of all humans. Billionaires have yachts so it must only be working for them. And since only billionaires benefit from the economy, we can wreck it no problem. There won't be deaths from starvation and exposure, because food and housing aren't part of the economy we're going to wreck.
People in America are already starving.
I am sorry you missed the theme. Please let me help.
The objective is to build an economy that supports everyone being well fed and well housed, instead of the very few hoarding rockets, jets, yachts, and multiple homes, while many more remain unfed and unhoused.
/s
The "economy" will exist whether it's a capitalist system or something else. Blaming the system is a stupid take when it's the actors within it causing the issues you complain about.
It's like blaming gravity.
The economy isn't perfect, but it pays my bills.
Maybe those bills shouldn't exist? Hmm?
I don't get it, do they think that wrecking the economy will not wreck them as well? The rock bottom is still pretty far.
Ya you clearly don’t get it. The economy is already destroyed for poor people. You can’t wreck what is already destroyed. Since the economy is already destroyed for poor people the next step is pulling the rich down with us and making them bleed.
The rock bottom is still pretty far
for you perhaps, millions if not billions globally are already there.
Choosing the status quo to maintain your own minor and almost certainly temporary comforts over change serves no one but the obscenely rich and powerful.We're not talking globally though.
The next step is pretty difficult, as far as I can tell. Survival at task will require crime, suffering, and mutual aid.
Seems very ungrateful to the job creators and innovators that just because the economy doesnt work for you, you want to wreck it for us too. Why not try starting up your own car company instead of cutting into the profits of the hard working Ford and GM families.
Uhhhh what?! Lol the car manufacturers made $32 billion in profit last year. A record amount. Are you honestly going to say there's not enough money to pay their works a livable wage? The union isn't even being out of line for what they are asking for. 400,000 workers even devided across everyone equally (which isn't what the are asking.) would be $80,000 a year. That's a life changing amount of money for those workers cbd would do better in their hands, apposed to a few executives and owners. However, that's not even close to what they are asking for! So you are lying or dumb.
The car manufacturers need that profit to distribute to their shareholders, or do stock buyback or whatever best benefits the share price etc. By doing so they are helping the whole economy and that money will eventually trickle down to the little guys in some form or another.
For example: instead of giving all that money to the greedy UAW, GM can use it to buy back their stock. The price of the stock and the net worth of the people who own most of it therefore goes up. They borrow against that stock for a new yacht in the Mediterranean and use it to visit a charming seaside village in Greece or Italy. They eat at the nicest restaurant in the nicest resort in that village.
Now, you see how that money helped the villagers who otherwise never would have seen a dime of it? The auto workers aren’t going to spend any of that money in Greece or Italy. Not to mention support the families of boat-makers, boat-loan-processors etc along the way.
It's a parody account, you dumb fucks
Pull the sticks out of your asses for christ sake
Billionaires aren't the ones that starve when the economy implodes.
This kind of rhetoric is what makes moderates ambivalent about unions. Sure we support your goals but the side-effects of that cure are ten times worse than the disease itself.
You’re talking out of your ass.
75% of Americans support the UAW
Just because there is public support does not mean it's right. Tanking the economy will only hurt the majority, billionaires literally won't notice. It's not just the UAW that's impacted, there's huge ripple effects. Many suppliers were barely hanging on and this will probably be a death knell. And honestly, this is what makes me fucking hate working in Financial Services for one of the big 3.
I run a department that performs forecasting that eventually influences the affordability of leasing globally and I'm responsiblefor a $25B portfolio. I work my ass off and I have a new family with a 1 year old - we were having a decent year finally after 3 bad ones, then this fucker comes along and is going to tank it.
So now my family is going to suffer because of something completely unrelated to my role and performance. He makes sound bites, but the sides are so far apart it's ridiculous. They accuse the companies of negotiating in bad faith, yet the UAW has yet to respond to any offer with a counter. They've been offered 20%+ raises, cost of living adjustments, signing bonuses, elimination of tiers, more holidays off, and better profit sharing - which is a huge improvement and gets them the majority of what they are asking for, but they've literally thrown that in the trash. My bet is all he will accomplish is more factories moving to non-UAW locations or Mexico.
What exactly is the advantage of being American made when the workers turn out the worst quality for the highest wages and they can shut down production on a whim every few years? It's honestly very frustrating to see this issue not being taken seriously here and there seems to be such little appreciation for the broader impacts.
"moderates"
Yes, "moderates".
Those of us who realize the building we all live in is old, has holes in the windows and floors, and never had an elevator installed, but would still prefer to renovate it than burn it down. Yes, we know some people are getting wet, or fell through the floor, and a few can't even get to their rooms, but the majority of us are warm, well-fed, and mildly entertained. We definitely need to get the holes patched and we should work on some sort of lift, but burning the place down is not going to help those who are missing out now and will harm everyone else in the process.
Of course they don't starve, they're often the cause, or accessory to said implosions, and governments are all too happy to bail them out of their bullshit while telling people to suck it up and go back to work.
This kind of rhetoric is what makes moderates ambivalent about unions
No. That would be the constant drone of pro-establishment and thus pro-billionaire propaganda from the billionaire-owned corporations that dominate the media landscape.
Also, here's a song about moderates for you.
Billionaires? Starve?
War* is never worth it for the ones who die fighting it. That is why we honor them for their sacrifices.
*so long as the war is for a good cause.
As long as they chose to join the fight sure, but when you start dropping bombs in civilian areas it becomes harder and harder to justify that war.
Thanks to people who want to retain the status quo that economic crisis are handled by fucking the poor and bailing out the rich. That is not a law of nature btw. It is a choice made by both large american parties every time.
The US could also increases taxes, seize assets from rich people and imprison tax evaders. With that money they could invest in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, renewable energies... That would bring the economy back on track and also help everyone to prosper.
What you describe is the result of deliberate disaster capitalism, where crisis are embraced as an opportunity to steal from the poor and give to the rich.
seize assets from rich people
I agree with everything you said except this bit. The 4th Amendment is supposed (glares at imminent domain) to protect us from a tyrannical government seizing our assets just because they want them.
both large american parties
Whoa whoa whoa let's not "both sides" this shit. There is one party doing this, and another party sometimes having to make concessions to them.
The US could also increases taxes, seize assets from rich people and imprison tax evaders. With that money they could invest in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, renewable energies…
Guess which party is working on all of this right now (minus the higher taxes part)?
Hint: the answer is not "neither"
The problem is that the billionaires never starve. They just end up with slightly less fathomless oceans of cash while we can afford rent or a mortgage.
If this doesn’t work, it’s time for some guillotines, then nobody has to starve at all.
"Is there a crime here that goes beyond denunciation? No. It's the grapes of wrath who are wrong."
