The existence of the middle class with many wealthy means you have to have a lot of people in poverty. If not liking that makes me left wing then so be it
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
51 points (81.5% liked)
Memes
52129 readers
560 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
What a horrible take. The world is not a zero sum game. The US in the 50s-80s is a good example of a thriving middle class and way lower poverty than now.
Edit: This is wrong. Poverty levels have been fairly stable since 1970. Middle class has shrunk but this does not appear to have had an impact on poverty rates.
1950-1970ish had a higher poverty rate than any time in the 50 years since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Poverty dropped from 1950-1970 (due to economic growth but the middle class also expanded during this time period) and has been fairly stable since.
You know what you're saying aligns with what they're saying right?
Nuanced difference. My point was that the significant drop in poverty from 1950-1970 existed with the increase and proliferation of the middle class. Their post implies that 20 year period (1950-1970) had high poverty rate the whole time, which is absolutely false.
It also coincided with the US propagating violent dictatorships and committing unparalleled war crimes abroad. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Indonesian Mass Killings, rise of the House of Saud, Shah in Iran, and incredible meddling and history of coups/death squads in Latin America.
That middle class wasn't made by just engaging in good business, unless you consider the violence of imperialism good business... In which case absolutely go fuck yourself... But only if you stand by all that foreign aggression and murder and downstream oppression.
Looks at instance…
Go fuck yourself hexbear Russian apologist. US fuckery internationally did nothing to build the middle class at home any more than Putin’s war crimes are helping the Russian economy.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Markets are inherently problematic and lead to wealth being centralized in the hands of the few owners. A well regulated market ignores the problem which must be addressed; the dichotomy of workers and owners. Class struggle won't be fixed if not addressed. Neo-liberalism markets can't be fixed with more neo-liberalism.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Me saying a market regulated by an uncorrupt government can generate wealth for many and generate a middle class.
Okay I know people might hate me for saying this, but isn't this just modern day China? Think about it:
-
While the government is definitely not uncorrupt and has many problems with corruption, Xi has introduced many corruption purges, and billionaires in China have actually faced legal consequences up to the death penalty. When is the last time a billionaire in the west actually faced legal consequences? (Just to be clear I am not pro death penalty, just illustrating a point).
-
China introduced markets with Deng and they are regulated by the government. Though this one is controversial among the left (quite a few Maoists think China could have achieved the same or even better results without the introduction of markets to the point it was done in the 80s and 90s).
-
China has generated wealth for many to the point they likely have the largest middle class on the planet in terms of sheer numbers, and in quality of life indicators such as average life expectancy, China has overtaken the US. They also achieved the largest poverty alleviation campaign in modern history.
This is not to say that China is a perfect country with a spotless human rights record or anything like that, it's to say that we can learn from what they've achieved and take our blinders off. And it's pretty ironic that your meme lines up with that in certain aspects.
load more comments
(5 replies)
"Uncorrupt government"
This is as delusional as anyone can get.
A wise man said it all once: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Oh so pragmatism would have that we abandon any hope at equality and we should accept to be slaves for the rich?
I don't get why the only solution is to trust others to take care of you. I have some bad news: No one gives a crap about you. The sooner you realize this the better. You should be responsible and learn more on how to manage your assets, investments, money, etc. In my opinion, this idea that we have to keep trusting the elite to run our lives is ridiculous. People should be more responsible and manage their money in an independent way.
I like cryptocurrency for this, because I have full control on my money and no government will be able to rehypothecate my money for whatever risky nonsense they're doing. But you don't have to be like me or like cryptocurrency. All you have to do is start thinking of a solution that works for you. You can start saving now, diversify in the world economy, and take risks that are appropriate to you, and prepare for your retirement. No need to act as if you have zero power when there are enough tools to give you power over your own money.
I'm the kind of guy that takes all my matters into my own hands, because I trust no one. I even run my email server, my cloud, my VPNs, my everything. I don't need anyone, company or government, and I have calculated risks in all my endeavour. I can migrate whenever I want. I believe everyone in the world should strive towards that. But we're living in a centralized world where google alone can just block almost everyone's life. I'm not in that club.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Boot-flavored capitalist Kool-Aid must be so refreshing during such a torrid summer