Seriously guys, we have *got* to start regulating Wall Street and investments more. And do something about wealth inequality. There is way, way too much money at the top and they're throwing it around recklessly. The next crash is going to make 2008 look like the.com boom.
> Seriously guys, we have *got* to start regulating Wall Street and investments more. And do something about wealth inequality.
That's a mixed message. "Doing something about wealth inequality" can be very risky. It's precisely what the National Socialist Party did about foreigners and Jews who'd invested their money in education and businesses, "returning the wealth to the people". It's what Russia did to the Ukraine at nearly the same time, redistributing the land and tools of the wealthier farmers to t
But he didn't use the phrase "raising taxes on the wealthy". He used the politically charged phrase "redistributing the wealth", which was a key goal of the Nationalist Socialist party to "redistribute the wealth" of the Jews and foreign nationals. It's a key goal of Marxist parties as well.
The exact phrase he used was "do something about the wealth inequity", you're right. I drew the parallel and pointed out historical disasters, including genocide of millions, rooted in just such attempts to redistribute wealth. And it is a key policy of many politics rooted in outrage against others, especially politics that strive to seize wealth. There can be good reasons to do it, especially when the wealth was stolen rather than earned. But the idea that merely owning wealth is proof of evil has been a
Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.
That's nothing (Score:3)
Seriously guys, we have *got* to start regulating Wall Street and investments more. And do something about wealth inequality. There is way, way too much money at the top and they're throwing it around recklessly. The next crash is going to make 2008 look like the
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
> Seriously guys, we have *got* to start regulating Wall Street and investments more. And do something about wealth inequality.
That's a mixed message. "Doing something about wealth inequality" can be very risky. It's precisely what the National Socialist Party did about foreigners and Jews who'd invested their money in education and businesses, "returning the wealth to the people". It's what Russia did to the Ukraine at nearly the same time, redistributing the land and tools of the wealthier farmers to t
Re: That's nothing (Score:0)
Re: That's nothing (Score:2)
But he didn't use the phrase "raising taxes on the wealthy". He used the politically charged phrase "redistributing the wealth", which was a key goal of the Nationalist Socialist party to "redistribute the wealth" of the Jews and foreign nationals. It's a key goal of Marxist parties as well.
Re: That's nothing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The exact phrase he used was "do something about the wealth inequity", you're right. I drew the parallel and pointed out historical disasters, including genocide of millions, rooted in just such attempts to redistribute wealth. And it is a key policy of many politics rooted in outrage against others, especially politics that strive to seize wealth. There can be good reasons to do it, especially when the wealth was stolen rather than earned. But the idea that merely owning wealth is proof of evil has been a