Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
I don’t know how many Marxist/Dem Socialists we have on FC, but there’s a convo I want to have (rather in person but): It’s presented by Bernie/Zoran/etc that there needs to be zero billionaires because their wealth should be redistributed. I heard someone else say “what if everyone was a billionaire?” I don’t think either are going to happen exactly (no billionaires vs all billionaires), but the decision sets if you make one or the other as the GOAL is fascinating, and I’d love to have that convo with people of many different viewpoints!
15 replies
6 recasts
35 reactions
Metaphorical pfp
Metaphorical
@hyp
Beware of the strawman. These labels cause more confusion and misinformation than anything. Let’s talk actual suggested policy.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
What strawman? What labels?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
But my entire point is do we want our goal with policy to be redistributing wealth or do we want our goal with policy to be so much growth that we enter a post-scarcity society?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Metaphorical pfp
Metaphorical
@hyp
Those are not mutually exclusive.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
I disagree
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Metaphorical pfp
Metaphorical
@hyp
Great. nice chat 👍
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
All you said was that it was not mutually exclusive and I said I disagreed. If you wanted to elaborate on your position, then I would have had something to discuss with you
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Metaphorical pfp
Metaphorical
@hyp
What would be a good measure? Tax rates of highest 10% earners correlated with gdp growth over last, say 80 years. Social safety net expenditures vs gdp growth?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
Why are you looking backwards at metrics from the past? This is an exercise in outlining the future and deciding what choices we would have to make based on our chosen goals Door 1: redistribute wealth and almost definitely keep the pie fixed (or even smaller) Door 2: grow the pie so large that everyone has what they need If you think those are not mutually exclusive, then I would like to know how you think we do both concurrently
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Metaphorical pfp
Metaphorical
@hyp
Few liberals care about “wealth redistribution” as a goal, just that people should have to suffer less and have a decent shot at a good life. Social mobility is the goal.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
The premise of this thought experiment is to put “no billionaires” (Bernie, Zoran, etc) vs “everyone is a billionaire” (could mean a few things, including costs are so low that having more money doesn’t actually buy much more). If you’re not engaging with that premise, then it’s a different conversation, but it’s what is on the ballot in NYC right now
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Metaphorical pfp
Metaphorical
@hyp
I agree neither of those are realistic, do make for sexy headlines, but not serious debate. We live in a world of extremes to drive clicks. These headlines are clickbait to me.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
It’s not about getting to either 100% realistically. It’s about what do we want the ultimate goal to be if we COULD make either realistic. The set of decisions and choices when either is the end goal is fascinating and would take us down very different paths. It’s ok if this isn’t the thought experiment for you and I hope one day we are both in a place where we can be making decision (together?) that put us down the path that we want to see
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction