The Effect of the Wonderful World of Unfettered Capitalistic Greed on the Housing Market
- Thread starter Anbarandy
- Start date
no i was just pointing that not all communists countries are total failure.
if you ask me my model is Europe. Capitalist countries but with high level of socialist measures.
In every country its a spectrum these days.
Governments fund some services, people pay taxes to pay for them.
The difference is in how progressive the taxation, how much corporate taxation and how many services.
Its not a black and white choice.
So you start with the obvious things a government has to fund.
Roads
Armies
Police
And then you figure out to pay for that and how many more services you want.
The problem in the US is that billionaires can bribe politicians directly to put rules in place that only favour themselves.
Losing freedom and having the government control every aspect of your life is indeed a total failure.
In a democratic society, the decisions about laws come about democratically. Some would agree with some of these laws, some don't. That will always be the case, and the people can ultimately decide to make changes via the electoral process.
Communism...not so much comrade.
You mean like how the government in the states just made it illegal to be homeless, that homeless people aren't allowed to stay in 'public' places?
Or do mean more like how the government controls how you are allowed to drive, forces you to buy insurance and wear a seatbelt?
You could move to somewhere that is way more free, a place where there is no functioning government to control your life.
Maybe Haiti or Somalia would finally give you that freedom you really want.
Libertarian/right wingers like you always remind me of this meme.
So when billionaires buy politicians who put in place laws that favour them over the will of voters, does that mean its no longer a democracy to you?
The ol'fallback to conspiracy theories.
There are billionaires on both sides if that's your argument.
Billionaires on both sides of what, skoob?
Now you're arguing that you don't support democracy at all, you support a plutocracy where the rich can buy whatever government they want and screw what the voters want?
I'm not the one who said wealthy people buy the government, you did.
All I said was that there are wealthy people on both sides ie of the political spectrum if you need it spelled out for you.
Would you rather a government who can never be voted out as long as they "take care" of you, a la Russia, a la China, etc? I think you have convinced yourself that would be better. You're not fooling anyone comrade.
This is your theory, that there are billionaires on both sides.
I've just provided info about right winger billionaires, go ahead and list the left wing ones if you've got names.
Meanwhile, you're now defending ending democracy because you think there are billionaires on 'both sides' who should be able to bribe politicians to do what they want. You just defended destroying democracy.
You're not fooling anyone.
This is what billionaires bought this week in the US.
Having the freedom to invest in yourself, innovate, become wealthy, ...is what democracy and freedom are.
You can stop twisting words anytime if you ever hope to be taken seriously.
Assuming you eat your own dog food so to speak...you don't think Soros has and continues to fund the leftist side of the equation?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/politics/democratic-billionaire-donors/index.html
You're still defending killing democracy by allowing billionaires to buy politicians.
Not only that, but you can only name one 'leftist' billionaire, which kills your only argument.
Why do you hate democracy?
There are billionaires on both political sides. A few openly democrat include:
Dustin Moskovitz
Michael Bloomberg
Irwin Jacobs
Warren Buffett
MacKenzie Scott
Pierre Omidyar
Ted Turner
Sidney Kimmel
Many billionaires support both political parties as it does not make business sense to put your eggs in 1 political basket.
Sure, the way that AIPAC buys dems and GOP politicians.
You think that makes it any better?
Don't you think a democracy is better than a plutocracy?
Don't you think politicians should listen to voters and not just billionaires?
In Post 312 you asked for some names... In post 314 you implied you would like more names than Soros. I gave you some names and some additional context on how billionaires contribute to political parties. I did not comment on democracy or political ideology.
I don't know the spending records of those billionaires vs what we know about right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers.
Why is that?
Even if they spent as much as right wingers, do you think that its still ok that politicians listen to billionaires instead of voters?
What point is there in even voting if they only listen to money?
Your argument if flawed. Yes money buys influence. However politicians listen to both. The billionaire political donations help fund the campaigns and get the message out. Boths sides throw out misinformation. Voters vote to decide who is in charge. A politician who ignores the polls is a politician who has a harder time getting re-elected.
Its not flawed.
For years politicians listened to the NRA over the wishes of voters, now they listen to AIPAC over voters. AIPAC funds dems and republicans and is largely the money from a half dozen very right wing, dual citizen billionaires. Regardless of which party you vote for you now almost always get an AIPAC serving choice. Billionaires will have pet issues they want, like tax breaks for the rich or banning homeless people from public spaces. They get those passed while you get the dems fighting over getting a small part of student loans written off, which gets the news for voters.
Politicians will do a handful of bills that placate voters while doing the bigger changes on behalf of those who have bought them.
You really think that isn't happening in the states and starting to happen here?
