samokosik @ samokosik @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

190

Joined

2 yr. ago

First of all, I do not see how our lives are based on a dictatorship by wealthier people.

How do you then want to democratize the economy? Do you want companies to have a structure where everyone votes?

You know, there is a significant difference between a state and a company. When you dislike a company, you can very easily just move to another one, when you feel abused by your boss, you can change the job anytime. In most countries, we have no laws that prohibit you from changing your job. On the other hand, to get a citizenship in my country, you need to live here realistically for 8 years. What I am trying to say here is that even if a company has a terrible leadership, it’s not the end of the world. It will probably end bankrupt but people can still find a job somewhere else. On the other hand, incompetent leading of a state can impact life more seriously and most importantly an individual cannot change the situation easily.

Last but not least you are saying that shareholders and private owners are parasites is not true at all. They give money to the company. Without that, you can have skilled employees but will they work for the sake of enjoying life in a democratic company? I highly doubt.

My great grandfather was in a concentration camp.

I would rather say your ancestors never lived in a communist country.

So essentially no one can leave then? First you say that capitalists should leave but workers stay. Then you say managers and engineers are workers…

So essentially you want everyone to stay?

This still works because you haven’t gone too far. You kept it at a reasonable rate where moving is less advantageous than paying higher taxes. At some point, this will shift.

Here are some examples:

1. Burgerking moving to Canada
2. Medtronic moving to Ireland
3. And here are some tax heavens: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/fifty-biggest-global-us-companies-stash-13-trillion-offshore

Well sure they don’t flee New York, California and other places where despite high taxes they can still make large amounts of money. Simply because most of development is there. If they can make 50k a month and pay 50% taxes in NY (just an example) compared to 10k and 10% taxes somewhere else (they would just stay).

However, this is not California/NY and you can easily check what high taxes do here. People register companies in Ireland and Cyprus, so they can pay the least taxes possible. Then, due to european union being european union, they can operate in their home country.

Yes, let the capitalists flee, so there is no one to pay the taxes. That seems like a very wise plan.

In addition, every company needs just workers. Management, engineers and so on are practically useless.

This would surely work very well.

Hint: You can actually see how brilliantly it worked during 1940s-1990s in the countries under Warsaw pact.

That aged like milk lol

Those ultra wealthy people and corporations are not that stupid. If they see they can exist and pay less in a different country, they will just move. Everyone will be happy apart from the country which rose the taxes.

Of course that rising living standards improves economy but not in a way where you just sponsor good housing for your whole population.

I would say nazis and communists are equally as bad and equally as dangerous.

Have you heard about what happened to greece?

For example, one third of population lived in poverty (in Greece) due to economic crisis. Is that not enough to take responsible money management seriously?

Well yes. They can go for it because they considering their size, they have a strong economy. They are literally the 3rd most prosperous country in the world.

If you can afford it, go for it but firstly you need to make the money.

Usually the surreal ones such as extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.

Basically all actions that look very good on paper but at the same time are extremely expensive.

Exactly those are the views you mentioned. All these are extremely expensive and financing all of them without the debt increase is practically impossible. Combine it with almost no relevant plans how to improve economy and you have got quite a dangerous situation. You cannot just spend money without earning it.

It’s hard to judge whether extreme right or extreme left is worse. They are both dangerous for a country, though in a different sense.

I personally am not in the exact middle but being radical is not a choice.

I have just pointed out that both sides have extreme views that are dangerous.

Well yes, especially when talking about reliability, they do not have very good scores.

They are just over complicated

Any factual argument or just ad-hominem?

Well, not only those cars suck but also he starts to ignore the ecology part 🤷‍♂️

Yeah, quite a tough decision to choose between 2 extremists :|

These radical left wing parties have have basically similar potential for government as radical right wing ones and are similarly dangerous.