At a Republican town hall in Nebraska

OJ didnt kill his partner, he killed his ex-wife, but that's not the point.

The point is that in both cases, the killer and the victim have taken on symbolic roles for different segments of society. In OJs case, he represented black citizens, especially those in LA, who had been brutally, systematically discriminated against by the LAPD for decades, while his white victim became symbolic of white crime victims at the hands of black criminals.

In Luigi's case, he has come to represent the people who have been systematically discriminated against by corporations in general, but especially by the breath-takingly corrupt health care insurance system, while the corporate serial-killer CEO has come to represent the Sociopathic Oligarchs and amoral trans-national corporations who ruthlessly, sociopathically exploit every hard-working American. Obviously, the Sociopathic Oligarchs dont share the same perspective. Like all ultra-wealthy, they think that they are the victims, and that poor people get ALL the breaks.

It should be noted that neither set out to be a symbolic example for American society, or at least OJ didn't. He was a fucking dickhead, who had the world by the balls, and just threw it all away in a stupid jealous rage, probably exacerbated by steroids.

Luigi may have hoped he would kick off a movement, and he has, but we don't know what his motivations truly were because he's not admitting to anything, as he should. He still has a chance to get acquitted based on his face not being seen in the murder video. That alone is enough for a juror to claim reasonable doubt, so he should keep claiming his innocence.

The bottom line is that we, as a society, apply these symbolic roles to these people, outside of their control. Those that deliberately try to set off a revolution, usually fail, like Charles Manson trying to touch of Helter Skelter (his designation for a race war) with his mass murders. Other examples of those who have been assigned symbolic societal roles include Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman, or the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, etc.

Mark Penn and Malcolm Gladwell (and many others, im sure) have both written about micro-trends, and how it takes such a small amount of the population - 2 or 3% - to reach a "Tipping Point," and force major change.

Its the reason the Conservative Propaganda Machine works so hard to keep us so confused and at each other's throats. They know that if even 3-5% of the population turns on them, they are royally fucked.

So if we give him an always-on TV with access to any given news-media, does he see the world and despair that he isn't out there ruling over a happier people? Or does he read it that everyone out there are fools and only I can fix this?

Not that it matters outside his fluffy 12x12.

counterpoint: it would only be worth it as long as an audience finds it interesting. make sure none of his kids reproduce, just because he would hate that. hit him where it matters. everything he cares about; tear it down. make sure he's forgotten, the genes he loves do not propagate, etc.

"The difference in wealth between a surgeon and a billionaire is about one billion dollars, it's the billionaires that need to pay more taxes, they pay a smaller % than you."

mostly the actualy 0.5% to .05% which are the hundred millionaires and billionaires. MDs are close to 1%

The medias are normalizing the pathological behaviours from the GOP. That false requirement to be unbiased in the face of the most serious breach to the constitution is what got us here.

Not all ideas are worth consideration and mainstream medias are failing to understand that.

I should probably have mentioned:

The main point of the post is that despite the connotations of the word “debt”, retiring the debt would be a disastrous mistake.

Even running multi-year neutral (or surplus) budgets would probably cause a recession.

And that’s not a weakness of the US economy, it’s just how fiat currency works.

Their major misstep is failing to purchase every major social media outlet in the country like the conservatives have.

BuT thEYRe jOb CrEAtOrs!!!

ThEYrE pHilANthrOPists!!

INovAtIOn! ThEYrE iNnovATorS!!!

I am not advocating lowering taxes, just not increasing them beyond what is sensible.

Also, I sincetely doubt the richest people in America see me as an indentured servant. You are being overly dramatic.

The term "Trickle Down Economics" was coined by Will Rogers, but ironically, he wasn't advocating for it, he was warning AGAINST it, in favor of "Trickle UP Economics:

The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.

He was 100% right, and we have proof. During the pandemic quarantine, the economy actually boomed, because the government did a couple of rounds of stimulus payments to all Americans, who spent it, thus STIMULATING the economy the way it was intended. Corporations like Amazon and Walmart had huge increases. The struggling delivery service business suddenly stabilized, and continues to be a viable business. Many people created successful home businesses that added to the economy. Others took the opportunity to learn new skills, and emerged from the quarantine with improved employment and compensation potential.

It proved that if you give the money to the people at the bottom, it will eventually get to the wealthy anyway, but at least it will grease the wheels of the economy as it moves through the system on its way to their hands. The wealthy would prefer that the government just hand them the money directly, it's much more efficient for them than to wait for it to Trickle Up, but all they have to do is be a little patient, and they'll still get their money, just after it has done some good for the economy first.

The current "Trickle Down" system is starting to crack, and it will break and collapse unless it is forced to hold together by oppression and violence, which is the path we are on now. If the Sociopathic Oligarchs don't eventually embrace "Trickle Up Economics," the real Free Market will replace the current "Trickle Down" system with "Robin Hood Economics" (Take from the rich, give to the poor), which the Sociopathic Oligarchs won't like at all, since it usually includes punitive violence toward the oppressors.

I do not believe taxes need to be set as low as possible for the rich, I simply said the negative effects of increased taxation of the rich can offset the benefits at some point. The government should not wage war on the market economy, it should optimise it. But for the socialists it seems the economy is the enemy, and they think very little about the consequences.

But there is a more important point: efficiency. You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult. The rich are a lot more opportunistic and conform far better to the expectations(that are expressed in the market by price) of what investments are needed/more efficient than the goverment possibly can.

Well, in my personal experience and according to the people I know, people do move, and if they are sufficiently rich, it is hardly a problem. But I suppose it is not as cut and dry as that, and often it is more difficult for people to move.

And what is the alternative? What would you prefer?

Capital is economic power. Should it be concentrated or not? Well, I will first say that I do not see a reasonable way to drastically reduce this inequality of power apart from socialism(as in planned economy, not welfare) which I reject for many reasons.

I would say it should be concentrated because: Most people do not have the desire or capacity to wield economic power. This has nothing to do with their intelligence or worth as an individual, but with their character mostly. It involves making many difficult decisions and significant responsibility, as you are at risk of losing your investments. You also need to show initiative which many people lack. If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.

Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price). If these incentive structures are weakened, this can make the economy unresponsive, which will make the resource allocation uneffective, probably even less effective than when the economy is managed by the state(socialism).

You should visit Monaco or Dubai, see for yourself.

Governments invest in some things, but they can't effectively manage the entire economy. It is too complex, and markets provide information that will simply not be available under central planning.

Hell, even now government investments are highly inefficient for many reasons. The government is getting ripped of by private contractors, as they can't control the complexities of production, have nearly unlimited resources, so they do not optimise, and a lot of asinine decisions are made because nobody cares enough. Look at how bloated the military funding is in the US for example.

Well, I actually used to be more leftist before, but at some point my values changed, it seems. I do not see how my social position is relevant to the discussion.

Even if they do mostly "lock capital away", as you said, this changes very little in my opinion. The market incentives are still present, and it is the expectation of the return on investment that keeps the economy running.

"We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money." - but you do have to discriminate on who gets money. Rich people fulfil this regulatory function. What is the alternative?

I should say that rich people, especially those that find themselves in precarious positions, are motivated to minimise their tax obligations by our economic system. This behaviour is not surprising by any means, and the responsibility is on the government to manage taxation in a proper way, not on the rich.

They are competent at allocating resources according to market tendencies, which, if the economy is mismanaged by the government, can cause damage lick the 2008 financial crisis. Crises are a well known trait of market economies, and successful government intervention should prevent them, as it has for quite a while.

Information that is provided by the market to capitalists and is expressed in price is exclusive to market actors. Price shows what should be invested in, what should be bought, built, etc. What is needed, to summarise. This is impossible under the command economy, and this is why since the economy is very complex it csn't be effectively managed by the government.

Taking money out of the economy is not bad. This allows the government to print more money without consequences.

How so? Income taxes are only paid in the country of residence.

What then? What would you do?

There is a crisis in Europe because of lack of investment, are you sure it is not your problem?