TLHLIM

mqt said:
For the longest time I thought she had a talent for delivering her message in a way that was relatively grounded and stronger than most progressives. Even if her policies weren’t attainable, she had a combination of charisma and focus that was similar to Bernie. Over the past year or two, it’s like she changed staff or something to prepare for a national or statewide run and her messaging has been worse.

I think you can make a broadly compelling political message around the whole no billionaires thing, but that it needs to be more rooted in the fact that every billionaire’s value is derived from the many people around them producing, selling and buying the things their companies built. You won’t win everyone over with it, but I think if you tap into the worker aspect rather than the “everyone vs. the billionaires” aspect, it’s a stronger message that positions progressives in a better place to combat the inevitable question of how such policies might impact the American workforce.
Click to expand...
Her speechwriter/manager left over five years ago and has never been the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mqt
sturg33 said:
I just genuinely want to understand what the negatives of someone being worth a billion dollars is? Like who is harmed by it? Because I can certainly tell you who is helped by it
Click to expand...
I can’t back this up with studies but waxing philosophically on Economics for a second, I think we’re so beholden to how the world is that we can’t really see what the alternative could be. I do not think within our system that it’s inherently worse for some people to be billionaires, but I am interested in how the scarcity of capital within our system interacts with the consolidation of it. We see those with wealth increasingly gain political power that can influence them maintaining that wealth for generations and exerting even greater influence over laws. We see tax policies and public services increasingly shuffle toward the aging population that currently holds more of the wealth and property at the expense of the younger generations. We see companies increasingly have the ability to turn even our personal ownership of things like phones, cars and media into subscription services that they can profit on monthly for us to maintain basic functionality.

There’s always going to be a give and take with job creation and the benefits of efficient production. But that’s where I think we’re stuck on how the current structure is. The economic environment we’re in right now is a relatively new one, and I think we need to do more to grapple with the fact that the biggest holders of capital and power in it are people who make products that create fewer quality jobs. The American worker and consumer is better off with Apple than not, but if that capital is not being re-invested broadly into as many jobs and communities, I think it does more harm than can be measured effectively.
 
thethe said:
Her speechwriter/manager left over five years ago and has never been the same.
Click to expand...
That tracks, cheers. Prompted me to do some research and I see he’s running for Congress this year. I’ll be interested to see how his campaign turns out, he could certainly be someone to watch in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
 
mqt said:
I can’t back this up with studies but waxing philosophically on Economics for a second, I think we’re so beholden to how the world is that we can’t really see what the alternative could be. I do not think within our system that it’s inherently worse for some people to be billionaires, but I am interested in how the scarcity of capital within our system interacts with the consolidation of it. We see those with wealth increasingly gain political power that can influence them maintaining that wealth for generations and exerting even greater influence over laws. We see tax policies and public services increasingly shuffle toward the aging population that currently holds more of the wealth and property at the expense of the younger generations. We see companies increasingly have the ability to turn even our personal ownership of things like phones, cars and media into subscription services that they can profit on monthly for us to maintain basic functionality.

There’s always going to be a give and take with job creation and the benefits of efficient production. But that’s where I think we’re stuck on how the current structure is. The economic environment we’re in right now is a relatively new one, and I think we need to do more to grapple with the fact that the biggest holders of capital and power in it are people who make products that create fewer quality jobs. The American worker and consumer is better off with Apple than not, but if that capital is not being re-invested broadly into as many jobs and communities, I think it does more harm than can be measured effectively.
Click to expand...
Rich people will hold influence no matter what. I'm specifically speaking about the war on "billionaires"... ok get rid of billionaires and now the millionaires will have that political influence. Nothing changes there

And the idea that these people aren't producing great jobs... you kidding me? If I offered you a job at google today you'd be a fool to turn it down. They get 200-400k to be babysitters and enough stock to make them millionaires within 5 years if they don't leave. All of these successful companies - the employees are making bank. The people "exploited" are the folks in China

But I just can't wrap my mind on why it's bad. They didn't get it by stealing it. I'm sure you have an iPhone. Nobody forced that on you. You wanted it! So you have a product you love. There is a company employing millions with awesome paying jobs and benefits. And a super smart and innovative CEO gets more capital to build more cool shit that you and I want
 
sturg33 said:
Rich people will hold influence no matter what. I'm specifically speaking about the war on "billionaires"... ok get rid of billionaires and now the millionaires will have that political influence. Nothing changes there

And the idea that these people aren't producing great jobs... you kidding me? If I offered you a job at google today you'd be a fool to turn it down. They get 200-400k to be babysitters and enough stock to make them millionaires within 5 years if they don't leave. All of these successful companies - the employees are making bank. The people "exploited" are the folks in China

But I just can't wrap my mind on why it's bad. They didn't get it by stealing it. I'm sure you have an iPhone. Nobody forced that on you. You wanted it! So you have a product you love. There is a company employing millions with awesome paying jobs and benefits. And a super smart and innovative CEO gets more capital to build more cool shit that you and I want
Click to expand...
It’s the looming threat of automation and centralization that I’m primarily discussing. Again, I’m not dismissing the jobs that *are* being produced by these employers. But these jobs will not sustain the entire country, and the more influence these producers specifically have in crafting economic policy, the more the economy is bound to specifically work for them. We’ve seen this with Trump’s tariffs, where they can run small businesses out of the market through a system where we make things prohibitively expensive for everyone except the companies that can lobby for exemptions. Google creates wonderful jobs, and there are great consumer products that come as a result. But if smaller businesses can no longer afford raw material because it’s ostensibly been made cheaper for certain businesses and industries by the government, I think it’s a net negative for the American worker.

And I don’t think it’s unethical, which is a big part of the messaging I hate. You’re right that we get cool things and people can create great wealth. But there’s a creeping divide between the health of the economy and the downstream benefits of that growth. The MAGA wing has wrongly embraced protectionism as a solution to that divide, and the left has wrongly embraced a war on billionaires. I don’t find either to be effective, but I think there’s still a problem to be solved.
 
mqt said:
It’s the looming threat of automation and centralization that I’m primarily discussing. Again, I’m not dismissing the jobs that *are* being produced by these employers. But these jobs will not sustain the entire country, and the more influence these producers specifically have in crafting economic policy, the more the economy is bound to specifically work for them. We’ve seen this with Trump’s tariffs, where they can run small businesses out of the market through a system where we make things prohibitively expensive for everyone except the companies that can lobby for exemptions. Google creates wonderful jobs, and there are great consumer products that come as a result. But if smaller businesses can no longer afford raw material because it’s ostensibly been made cheaper for certain businesses and industries by the government, I think it’s a net negative for the American worker.

And I don’t think it’s unethical, which is a big part of the messaging I hate. You’re right that we get cool things and people can create great wealth. But there’s a creeping divide between the health of the economy and the downstream benefits of that growth. The MAGA wing has wrongly embraced protectionism as a solution to that divide, and the left has wrongly embraced a war on billionaires. I don’t find either to be effective, but I think there’s still a problem to be solved.
Click to expand...
I mean to me this is just a bunch of vague, non specific rhetoric along the lines of "protecting the individual in this corporate environment "

Lets play a game where jeff bezos never existed. Awesome! One less billionaire!!

But that also means 1.6M people not working for amazon. Are they working for the local mom ans pop instead?

That also means thousands of business never starting thats to no AWS. How many jobs are employeed from bisinesses using AWS?

That also means i dont get my 200 lb generator i ordered this morning delivered to my door at 2p. Sucks for me now i gotta go spend 2 hours going to the store to get the same product and having to carry it myself from my car to my door

How many entrepreneurs were born out of amazon?

Jeff bezos is responsible for.so much frickin abundance and luxery that its insulting to suggest he doesnt deserve his money. And now hes spending his wealth on putting rockets on Mars!

Sign me up for that instead of some stupid retarded jealousy tax that our government lights on fire within minites of collecting
 
Like im just not seeing the "bad" part of Bezos having a billion dollars.

Jealousy and envy. Thats it. But nobody is being harmed due to his wealth. Instead, his wealth is an indication of how much he has helped
 
sturg33 said:
Like im just not seeing the "bad" part of Bezos having a billion dollars.

Jealousy and envy. Thats it. But nobody is being harmed due to his wealth. Instead, his wealth is an indication of how much he has helped
Click to expand...
Wealth is a proxy of individual value. The left is against the idea of even things like gifted and talented programs. It’s consistent that they despise hard work / talent / and over achievers.

Well except when used to push a convenient political message.
 
mqt said:
For the longest time I thought she had a talent for delivering her message in a way that was relatively grounded and stronger than most progressives. Even if her policies weren’t attainable, she had a combination of charisma and focus that was similar to Bernie. Over the past year or two, it’s like she changed staff or something to prepare for a national or statewide run and her messaging has been worse.

I think you can make a broadly compelling political message around the whole no billionaires thing, but that it needs to be more rooted in the fact that every billionaire’s value is derived from the many people around them producing, selling and buying the things their companies built. You won’t win everyone over with it, but I think if you tap into the worker aspect rather than the “everyone vs. the billionaires” aspect, it’s a stronger message that positions progressives in a better place to combat the inevitable question of how such policies might impact the American workforce.
Click to expand...
Well the problem with all of this is it’s hard to sound smart when you’re worldview is moronic and can only be obtained through forced coercion, theft, and violence.
 
mqt said:
I can’t back this up with studies but waxing philosophically on Economics for a second, I think we’re so beholden to how the world is that we can’t really see what the alternative could be. I do not think within our system that it’s inherently worse for some people to be billionaires, but I am interested in how the scarcity of capital within our system interacts with the consolidation of it. We see those with wealth increasingly gain political power that can influence them maintaining that wealth for generations and exerting even greater influence over laws. We see tax policies and public services increasingly shuffle toward the aging population that currently holds more of the wealth and property at the expense of the younger generations. We see companies increasingly have the ability to turn even our personal ownership of things like phones, cars and media into subscription services that they can profit on monthly for us to maintain basic functionality.

There’s always going to be a give and take with job creation and the benefits of efficient production. But that’s where I think we’re stuck on how the current structure is. The economic environment we’re in right now is a relatively new one, and I think we need to do more to grapple with the fact that the biggest holders of capital and power in it are people who make products that create fewer quality jobs. The American worker and consumer is better off with Apple than not, but if that capital is not being re-invested broadly into as many jobs and communities, I think it does more harm than can be measured effectively.
Click to expand...
Apple returns $100b every year of capital back to shareholders through stock buybacks. Those shareholders then buy houses, pay taxes, build businesses, buy products, etc. It accomplishes the exact thing socialists complain about

AOC and her ilk like Bernie and Zohram and all of their acolytes are incapable of understanding this so they instead villainize. It’s a cancer
 
chop2chip said:
AOC and her ilk like Bernie and Zohram and all of their acolytes are incapable of understanding this so they instead villainize. It’s a cancer
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm strongly in favor of increasing taxes on the rich. They should not be villainized and dehumanized. They are hard-working and productive people. Afaik not a single one of them eats our cats and dogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top