unfreeradical @ unfreeradical @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

138

Joined

2 yr. ago

Speculation has been a relatively insignificant factor overall in the trade of stocks compared to growth in their intrinsic value.

Stocks carry and accrue value due to the work of others than those who hold them.

I am becoming confused about your overall position on the subject.

Nevertheless, it seems plain that as long as company shares remain tradable, some holders will accumulate fortunes allowing them to survive merely by virtue of their holdings, through profit generated by the work of others.

The trading of stocks itself, not particular laws or codes, supports the stratification of society into workers and owners, even if some workers own some stocks.

Unfortunately, Americans older than thirty years still remain largely indoctrinated to support their oppressors.

Stocks themselves do allow billionaires to exist.

Almost always stocks is understood to represent tradable assets.

Money is not a resource of fixed supply.

Taxing the rich is not offered as a panacea to solve all problems, and no one serious about the idea has framed it so narrowly as you have done.

One quite natural benefit, which you seem not to have considered, of taxing the rich, is beginnig to assuage the severe inequality that affords immensely imbalanced power and privilege to a tiny cohort of society.

The issue is social and political, not geographical, and not particularly related to Brexit, except tangentially.

Did you live in a part of the UK that was never governed by a Thatcher ministry?

If such a part exists in the UK, then surely it is the best part to live today.

American workers historically have understood clearly that their antagonist is the capitalist class, who uses the hollow abstraction of "the economy", framed as an end in itself, to distract from its selfish pursuit of private accumulation.

It is time that everyone finally wake up and join the shared struggle.

Please justify your claim that increasing the marginal tax rate for one bracket requires doing so for all.

Also note, even taking your claim on its merits, those in lower brackets benefit more greatly from spending on social programs. A household may experience a small rise in taxes offset by a large gain from in social spending.

The names and faces may change but the story has long been the same.

A recent article by Joshua Hill describes certain very recent manifestations of the austerity narrative, and Clara Mattei has contributed helpful work to elucidate its emergence as being linked to fascism.

Well, I am not defending overworking. I simply felt your wording was expressing behavior and ideas that seem rather harsh.

Does "human nature" "dictate" that nuclear families are a central organizational structure within society, or are there plenty of exceptions, in the sense of societies following systems and cultures very different from the one under which you live?

Are you suggesting that a progressive tax illegitimately targets the rich as a particular group of people?

Are you a troll?

1. The emphasis of the post is not taxation.
2. A progressive income tax, as well as augmentation of the capital gains tax, are various ways to tax the rich that are obviously constitutional.
3. While some right-wing sources insist a wealth tax is unconstitutional, in fact no judicial inquiry has yet been tried, and mainstream sources readily affirm its viability.

In many counties, unemployment benefits are more than adequate for survival.

Americans will have a long climb out of the despairing pit of neoliberalism, even before being in any position to aspire reasonably for a systemic transformation beyond the rule of capital.

It's up to unions to make the recent decision relating to the NLRB simply the most recent of a long train of concessions and victories yet to come.

You might want to learn about the nonprofit-industrial complex.

A long as the social system under which we all live is such that work is tied to money and money is tied to survival, the dissociation is a luxury few can afford.

Being in an environment that supports throwing away people hardly seems lucky.

It is always welcome when the state supports labor, but remember, collusion between the state and capital is latent in the system, and ultimately exceptions, in which state power serves the interests of labor, are no more than concessions that may be lost the moment labor is caught off guard.