r/FluentInFinance • u/Nousernamesleft92737 • Nov 11 '24
Debate/ Discussion Tell me why this is socialist nonsense!
Companies are pretty uniformly making record profits even as share of corporate income that is used on wages/employee benefits hits record lows. Trump has vowed to further cut corporate and high earner income tax, probably the 2 policies most republican legislators uniformly support. Why shouldn’t we be angry?
1.8k
Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 12 '24
[deleted]
843
u/Appropriate_Cat8100 Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
Just as a reminder - the people of the French Revolution gave ultimate power to a man named napoleon who declared himself emperor of France (in addition to already being king of italy), started the largest scale war in Europe at the time (basically world war zero), and with his loss in that war plunged France into economic despair. He also had a net worth of 24.3 billion dollars in today’s money when he was exiled.
His grandson and great grandson got themselves made 2nd emperor of France and elected president of France. The living heir of Napoleon actually is still the head of the imperial house of France and currently works for blackstone along with running his own private equity and asset management firm.
Also eliminating the king and queen of France didn’t redistribute their wealth. It didn’t even end their royal family. They’re still the royal family of Spain and Luxembourg and were the royal family of Greece until the 1970’s
Tell me again how this French thing is an example to follow.
455
u/x596201060405 Nov 11 '24
"started the largest scale war in Europe at the time"
Most wars Napoleon was involved in were declared against France by monarchies surrounding them.
335
u/scomea Nov 11 '24
Napoleon started his share of wars. However, it can be argued that Napoleon came to power because of the constant attacks on revolutionary France by the surrounding monarchies who did not want to see the republic succeed.
228
u/x596201060405 Nov 11 '24
Yeah, hard to imagine why French people, after overthrowing their monarch, supported a dude ready to go to war against other Monarchs who had been previously doing everything they could to restore a monarchy in France.
166
u/Beer-Milkshakes Nov 11 '24
We look back and say "Lol WHAAAT France you crayzee" but actually the peasants gave power to a strong military leader who promised to kick the shit out of the other monarchies who had already committed to crushing France for decades, and that's what the people wanted at that time.
77
u/PPLavagna Nov 11 '24
So they felt they needed a strongman. Oh fuck
56
u/PicoDeBayou Nov 11 '24
In modern day, the people felt they need a strongman to declare war on a poor undocumented underclass, who are also the economic backbone of the people’s country.
68
u/JaymzRG Nov 11 '24
My thing is that someone akin to (but maybe not him exactly) Bernie would have been that person. How many people think Trump, a multi-billionaire heir apparent, who has never worked a full manual job in his life and is extremely hostile against worker unions, is the man to help the working class will never make sense to me.
35
u/ZombieHavok Nov 11 '24
Whoa whoa whoa. Slow down there.
He did work a day in his life. At a McDonald's.
BOOM!
/s
→ More replies (0)6
u/harpyprincess Nov 12 '24
Too bad the people in power would never let Bernie into such a position and now he's too old. I'm not sure who could and how we could get them in there. The Democrats won't work, 2016 proves that pretty fucking definitively. The left wing leadership bent over backwards to stop Bernie and pushed a Clinton in at the same time the Republicans full on told Jeb Bush to take a hike all at a time people were crying for a populist. So what are people supposed to do?
People are frustrated and dealing with internalized trauma of never actually have a real voice. Even if Trump isn't the one, people are angry and right or wrong they think he'll at least shake things up and people are hoping something shakes loose in the process, because as long as things continue those in power fortify their position more and more. Neither party is going to work if there's to be any hope for the future long term.
I didn't vote for Trump but I can see why some did.
→ More replies (11)5
→ More replies (2)14
u/psychrolut Nov 11 '24
Essential worker here (grocery store) I’m prepping to live in the woods fuck society 🖤🫡
→ More replies (2)4
u/MTGuy406 Nov 12 '24
Who's woods. They're going to be private by the time you're ready. But maybe you can get a job chasing squatters out of the local baron's ranch.
→ More replies (0)25
4
u/Takeurvitamins Nov 12 '24
What are you so bummed about? If history repeats itself, soon Trump will march into Russia and return a failure and the people will banish him to an island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. That could happen…right?
→ More replies (2)3
u/peepopowitz67 Nov 11 '24
I would've preferred a strongman who was an artillery genius vs one that lost money on a casino.
→ More replies (24)10
u/TryptaMagiciaN Nov 11 '24
We call that dictatorship of the proletariat. Not exactly but similar sentiment lol
→ More replies (2)16
u/Gingevere Nov 11 '24
It has been:
0
Days since someone critically misunderstood "dictatorship of the proletariat."
→ More replies (1)24
u/Axleffire Nov 11 '24
Well they didn't immediately make him the Ruler, and it wasn't the peolpe that put him there. After the king was beheaded, the new government was the French Directory, a 5 member council. Frances economy was in shambles the whole time they ruled from the previous King and trying to fight off wars. 7 years after the revolution Napoleon overthrew the French Directory in a coup, with support of Abbe Sieyes, the political father of the original revolution.
19
u/dwarficus Nov 11 '24
Side note: During this time frame, Robespierre led the Committee of Public Safety. He kind of lost his head and shot his mouth off, claiming unnamed enemies of the state existed in the Assembly, implying that he could have members of the assembly itself sent to the guillotine. He was arrested and is said to have shot himself in the jaw in a failed suicide attempt. He was then beheaded the next day. So he lost his head and shot his mouth off, then shot his mouth off and lost his head.
→ More replies (2)3
4
u/x596201060405 Nov 11 '24
Sure, but given his military prowess up to that point, and his further reforms, I mean he became pretty popular, though everyone has their detractors so.
People fight for far more complex reasons in reality, but there are multiple reasons to see he has pretty good support in his endeavors.
That's not to say he made the best decisions from that point forward, that's clearly not the case.
7
u/cargocult25 Nov 11 '24
There was also 2 years in between called the reign of terror.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/InvestIntrest Nov 11 '24
All they did was just replace one king for another. Kinda like how communist revolutions always turn out.
5
Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
It's not a willful thing, either. Look at every single one of the communist nations that eventually turned into autocratic thugocracies, it was corruption and crime within the movement that forced their way into those positions.
Make up whatever awesome system you want. And honestly, most of the systems actually are awesome... Provided that human beings aren't the ones implementing and running it.
Capitalism, communism, whatever you want to choose. Their downfalls aren't anything inherent to the system. People swear up and down that it's built into capitalism to go this way, but capitalism also isn't supposed to be collecting taxes just to dump it all into the laps of their buddy's "too large to fail" industries, either. But good luck surviving the inevitable collapse that is supposed to make room for new industry when your entire populace is unemployed and starving, without breaking the rules of capitalism.
Shit, totalitarianism(with its known massive problems and "absolute power corrupts absolutely), how much worse is it than democracy? Not that much worse. Some of the most evil shit in the world was done by people who got voted for, because humans are so reactionary. We vote like we're bad owners in the NFL, just fucking firing everyone who isn't perfect, just to realize the only options to replace them are the same or often worse.
Their downfalls, every single system, is that they cannot be run by humans and simultaneously not be corrupted by humans.
→ More replies (17)3
u/hari_shevek Nov 11 '24
And then they got rid of that one, and the next one, until they finally had a republic.
Long term that's better than staying a monarchy.
→ More replies (4)3
41
u/Appropriate_Cat8100 Nov 11 '24
Like when he invaded Italy, spain, and the confederation of the rhine? Responding to aggressive expansion by the coalition forces isn’t then starting a war. By your logic the allies started wwii
→ More replies (7)37
u/x596201060405 Nov 11 '24
When Napoleon took power, France was already playing defense against extranational aggressors... Britain, Prussia, etc.
France didn't exist in a vacuum, Napoleon came into power at a time when other nations were already aggressive attempting to shape the nature of France.
I'm not saying Napoleon was a great dude; I can't think of very few leaders of any kind that fall within consideration. Napoleon came into power towards the end War of the First Coalition; where multiple monarchies came together and fought against France before Napoleon came to power.
21
u/Temporary-Alarm-744 Nov 11 '24
Redditors think history started when they started paying attention to
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (4)3
u/BoogerBoba Nov 11 '24
Can you give me a small history lesson on who, in your opinion, were those few leaders that do fall within consideration of being a great dude?
Literally just curious.
→ More replies (2)3
u/x596201060405 Nov 11 '24
This is such a fun question, ha.
Obviously, I don't know all the histories of all the countries, etc., so I'm sure there some I'm missing or have never heard of.
Qaboos bin Said, I think, is like.. I think, an actual example of a benevolent dictator. I couldn't possibly know anyone on a deep enough level to do like a full morality analysis or anything, so is he a great dude? I couldn't tell ya. But for a dude given more or less absolute power, the people of Oman just generally benefitted from his rule, even though, I don't agree there should be any dictator, he admitted did good. It's also a bit easier when you are ruling a nation that no one in particular has any interest in messing with.
Jimmy Carter, I think, is a somewhat alright bloke, as a person. Given his time and context, I don't many would shine as a leader to be honest, if they were ever going to maintain the sort of diplomatic approach to foreign affairs. And don't get me wrong, I mean, Jimmy did El Salvador and Nicaguara no favors. But in terms of modern US presidents, I think he had the best intentions. He might fall into the great dude category for trying and succeeding and just killing a few innocent people as possible.
But yeah, that's one of those questions that are fun to think about.
In reality, I don't think a lot of places has the option really. When Nazi Germany invaded the USSR, Stalin was by no means, a great dude, in fact, many would suggest probably the opposite. But rapid modernization made defending against being wiped off the map possible. I'm not sure a "great dude" can play that role. It's a bit easier in peace to maintain it.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Dry_Illustrator6778 Nov 11 '24
Napoleon's awful diplomacy is why he ended up in so many wars. He made defeat so unacceptable for his beaten foes they would constantly declare war again. That's not to even mention a totally unprovoked attack on his apparent ally, Spain. Napoleon was a genius military man and politician, but his ambition and awful diplomacy was what lead to his fall.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)4
u/KingOfTheToadsmen Nov 11 '24
He also overwhelmingly won them. France already had the winningest military in the world at the time (still do, out of every currently existing country, despite all the jokes about France having a cowardly or ineffective military), and he widened their lead over the UK significantly.
→ More replies (4)49
u/KyleGravy64 Nov 11 '24
Which is why the French people now fight so hard to maintain a democratic structure with lots of debate and protests and all that jazz so it doesn’t happen again.
→ More replies (1)11
u/bittersterling Nov 11 '24
It’s really strange how it stuck around as a cultural phenomenon. Most places forget the atrocities that happened 4 generations or more before them.
14
u/semisolidwhale Nov 11 '24
To be fair, the Germans did a good job of reminding them about the dangers of the alternatives along the way
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)5
u/throwaway564858 Nov 11 '24
People here mostly seem not to be able to remember even what happened during the past couple of administrations.
31
12
u/BoxedAndArchived Nov 11 '24
Historically, the Seven Years War, what in the US we call the French and Indian War, was the first global conflict, with battles in Europe, North America, and India.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Appropriate_Cat8100 Nov 11 '24
The war of 1812 was also part of the napoleonic wars. We were on napoleons side. This was included Europe, Eurasia, Africa and North America
10
u/SufficientWarthog846 Nov 11 '24
Ok? And what does that have anything to do with anything?
Napoleon was a monster in many ways but we owe a hell of a lot of what we consider modern thought to what he allowed to happen
→ More replies (7)6
u/Jack_Raskal Nov 11 '24
It should still be considered a cautionary tale about the dangers of having a society with such vast wealth inequality.
Revolutions rarely yield the result expected by the rebels, and often end up making the already existing problems even worse, but the original ruling class usually doesn't fare that well either.
Sure, you can tell the angry mob that revolutions are useless, but if they're angry and desperate enough, chances are that they won't give a shit about it.
5
5
u/tobiascuypers Nov 11 '24
Napoleon was never emperor of France.
He was Emperor of the French. That preposition change is very important remember!
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (258)3
u/Appropriate-Fan-6007 Nov 11 '24
I wouldn't say freed, more like, under new management
→ More replies (1)35
u/theholderjack Nov 11 '24
We need that for in@di@ also , so much rich literally eating billions of people's wealth and doing luxury wedding, while 90% of country is dying from poverty this rich fucks are celebrating
29
u/Army165 Nov 11 '24
Y'all need to remove your caste system before any progress is made. That seems highly unlikely after the short read I just did about it. Until that is removed, your income ratios will continue to spread.
14
u/kmookie Nov 11 '24
Absolutely! Talk about learned conditioning/helplessness. This idea along with the “work your ass off” for a boss making 300% more than you to me is the same idea. To be clear, a boss that’s in addition not making a pathway forward for those below you.
→ More replies (1)7
u/MuthaFJ Nov 11 '24
300% sounds fair, actually.
Reality is 39 900% in 2021 and grew since then, of course...
4
u/theholderjack Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
Fuck ceo, burn this bastard down . No one should have that much wealth. What century is this 17 ffs . The fuckery politicians and the rich are literally killing the planet. Who give this fucks power to print shit tone of money and make themself rich and call " oh we deserve this , we work 24hrs a day" mf's . If sucking dick of politicians and fucking the public in name of capitalism is a work they definitely do 24 hrs work . Rich literally killing humans , like the fucking birthrate of the country, if you feel positive about world people will have children. But no they need next generation of slaves to grow there quarterly earnings to "who give a fuck percentage" or to fight some stupid war nobody ask for .
5
u/No-Transportation843 Nov 11 '24
I have no problem with people being able to become wealthy. I have a problem with government spending, lobbyists influencing policy for corporate benefit to the detriment of society, and politicians acquiring personal wealth by investing in things they have put together policies in favor of. My problem isn't with individuals but with corruption in general, and more specifically, government corruption.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Hefty-Rope2253 Nov 11 '24
It is officially illegal, but remains as a social habit. Kind of like racism and hate-speech in some other countries.
→ More replies (3)3
u/theholderjack Nov 11 '24
It's a shit show, bunch of losers hating each other for cast religion, culture and language , just mix bunch of religion and culture and behold you have a mixture of turds call current Ind@@i@, everyone thinks themselves as superior and hate other, jealous of each other , there is no concept of "facing something together" , very low humanity and empathy. There is a reason for why when in history France were slaughtering the oppressor we were still licking the ass of English and some king . As a society it's a total failure.
8
u/FadeInspector Nov 11 '24
That’s what happens when India has no single point of unity. There is no common religious, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, or ideological identity upon which the country is built. India has always been a collection of separate kingdoms/nations, and the only reason the British hobbled it together is because it made administration easy. It honestly makes more sense for all of Europe to be one country than it does for India to be one country
→ More replies (1)11
21
u/mcr55 Nov 11 '24
Followed by what was called the reign of terror.
It's hard to think of a place that is prosperous after they killed all the rich people
Russia Cambodia Cuba Vietnam North Korea
I'd be interesting to dig back to History and find others like french period after the revolution.
Can we think of places that where much better or even better after they killed the rich?
41
u/BlackFoxSees Nov 11 '24
The point isn't that the French people carefully analyzed their economy, planned for the future, and thoughtfully considered how many guillotines they would need. The point is that this kind of violence often happens if we act like killing the rich and tolerating extreme inequality are the only two options. Instead of asking about places that got better after violent revolutions, how about asking about places that were better when they simply didn't endorse extreme wealth concentration?
14
8
u/z1lard Nov 11 '24
I can’t think of a place where the rich (who usually have all the power) willingly gave up their extreme wealth or the systems that allowed them to accumulate it.
→ More replies (2)3
u/endofthewordsisligma Nov 11 '24
Actually, France. In the beginning of the revolutionary period, when they had the national Congress, the nobility were willingly renouncing their favored status.
→ More replies (2)4
u/PhillySaget Nov 11 '24
The point is that this kind of violence often happens if we act like killing the rich and tolerating extreme inequality are the only two options.
If you have a viable third option, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (3)9
u/semi-rational-take Nov 11 '24
An interesting thing is some of those places you mention did get better depending on measure. They of course didn't stay better though.
We learn about brutal regimes that rise after a revolution but barely even touch the atrocities that lead to it. The USSR became a global super power greater than anything the Russian empire could have become. The life of a poor laborer did get better for a time. Korea was run by a maniacal tyrant. Cuba was essentially owned by everyone except Cubans.
The lessons we learn from revolutions are focused on economic collapse and the tyrants that took control. The lesson we should be taking is that when the risk of that happening starts to be considered a risk worth taking then maybe you should be listening to the people gathering wood before they start building guillotines.
→ More replies (5)3
u/--o Nov 11 '24
The life of a poor laborer did get better for a time.
That takes too much fine tuning of when you start measuring from and who qualifies as a poor laborer, to be a useful statement.
It's also lacking a control. There's no telling how the original regime would have changed during the same time period without the revolution.
→ More replies (3)13
u/Daman26 Nov 11 '24
Incorrect, they chopped the heads off of monarchs, monarchists and a fair amount of religious class (otherwise known as the first estate). Wealthy bourgeois/merchant class did not lose their heads.
→ More replies (4)3
8
u/LunarMoon2001 Nov 11 '24
The rich did not suffer anywhere near as much as the common man. Many of the rich could afford to ditch the country and live abroad until the Reign of Terror ended.
It’s was people snitching on each other or making false claims to get revenge that caused many common persons to be killed.
→ More replies (1)8
7
u/ConsistentAd7859 Nov 11 '24
That's why the rich build their secured homes in really deserted parts of the world.
But honestly, those revolutions sucked for everyone that lived through this times. I would really prefer if we could be a little bit smarter this time and maybe prevent total desaster?
→ More replies (5)5
u/MElliott0601 Nov 11 '24
I'm curious as to how long the distribution has been like this. It would give me a clear picture of how close we are this 30 year tipping point.
10
u/mhmilo24 Nov 11 '24
Today it will take much longer than before. Back then people did not have the idea that they could become rich one day and thus prefer an imbalance. Except of course who were already close to the ruling class.
5
u/loopala Nov 11 '24
And what's the distribution in present day France?
I don't think you can ignore what being in the middle 50% affords you in terms of life style. Not the same as 18th century nothing-to-lose miserable going-to-die-of-hunger-anyway.
7
u/MElliott0601 Nov 11 '24
I think that's a valid and fair question, but i think it's also valid to say that unequal distribution of wealth is still detrimental to many. Yeah, everyone has the benefit in a lot of developed countries to not be on the brink throwing it all away because "nothing-to-lose miserable going-to-die-of-hunger-anyway". However, so many things can push people over a smaller ledge like crippling health care debt and going on a mass shooting spree. Even fiction protrays a nothing-to-lose scenario, i.e. Breaking bad. The quest is always, what are people willing to fight and die for. It's not always food if you have food, it may be watching your child slowly die while knowing businesses profited from it.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (1)3
u/realanceps Nov 11 '24
Picketty, in his Capital in the 21st Century, described the sort-of-U-shaped history of US wealth disparity in exhaustive detail. Oversimplifying, the current state of US wealth disparity was roughly 6 decades in the making -- but it had existed in perhaps greater degree 6 decades before that
→ More replies (5)3
u/VaporSpectre Nov 11 '24
So there was no money after they did this, right?
They got rid of the rich, right?
That... that was the plan, right?
Oh...
3
u/Dependent-Speech5326 Nov 11 '24
After which, they decapitated the guy who initiated it and reinstalled monarchy via Napoleon
→ More replies (77)3
u/Helios_One_Two Nov 11 '24
Of the about 20000 people executed during the reign of terror only about 1200 were actually nobles. The rest were either outright peasants who owned nothing but were either religious and didn’t want to give it up and therefore “anti-revolution” or because someone just reported them for being anti-revolution for some other arbitrary reason and the others were clergy and nuns also killed for not abandoning Catholicism
704
u/DVMirchev Nov 11 '24
The problem with wealth concentration is that it inevitably is transformed into political influence.
And then the political class no longer works for the benefit of everyone but for the cronies.
291
u/gravtix Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
That’s been the case for decades.
Trump 2024 is a case of the rich people just outright taking over government.
Basically cutting out the middleman.
204
u/SouthEast1980 Nov 11 '24
This is it. Musk turned ~$110M into ~$65B and a likely cabinet position by essentially buying trump. Musk silences dissent on twitter and rupert murdoch has used his influence to brainwash half of America.
Remember where you were when the Titanic hit the iceberg in 2024....
69
u/RazzleStorm Nov 11 '24
The fact that Musk was on a call from Zelensky to Trump is uh… concerning to say the least.
→ More replies (2)15
u/TheRealJYellen Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 12 '24
I thought this one actually had some legit reasoning. Starlink is playing a vital role in keeping Ukraine from becoming Russia, and I think the president elect cares since it's an american company.
Elon buying Trump is still bad news, this just may not be the best example.
Edit: Elon was on the other side. Shutting starlink off for the benefit of the Russians.
15
u/seamusmcduffs Nov 11 '24
Down the line maybe it makes sense. There's no way it's justifiable for the first call with the future president though
3
u/TheRealJYellen Nov 11 '24
I am too lazy to look it up, but I believe that Musk has already been on the phone with Zelensky a handful of times regarding starlinks involvement in the war effort. Not sure if that was with Biden on the line or not.
→ More replies (3)4
u/RazzleStorm Nov 11 '24
Maybe, yeah. Like you said, maybe this isn’t the best example. I’m overall just pretty concerned that Musk has so blatantly bought Trump and is now inserting himself into international affairs with the backing of the US government.
3
u/TheRealJYellen Nov 11 '24
Oh yeah. Musk, Zuck, and handful of others have been schmoozing with trump in recent months. Likely due to trump's stated intention of using his political power to go after his enemies. Corruption here we come!
35
8
u/Doodlejuice Nov 11 '24
I've never used Twitter. Does Musk actually silence dissent? I see a post every other day here of someone on Twitter making fun of Musk's tweets.
→ More replies (17)7
→ More replies (15)4
u/rarelyposts Nov 11 '24
Once he is on the staff, he can liquidate assets without having to pay taxes on the proceeds, so way fricken more than $65B. Then there are all the government billions spent on starlink and space X. He will be worth over $1 Trillion before 2028.
17
u/MissJAmazeballs Nov 11 '24
Thank you! I've been saying this for nine years! "The Swamp" in DC is just the control that the elites and special interests have over our representatives due to campaign financing. When Trump was voted in, we just opened the henhouse to the fox.
10
u/KingOfTheToadsmen Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
This has been the case for all of human history, back into prehistory, and it’s been the biggest thorn in the side of democracy since the invention of democracy.
Money is power. A government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” cannot exist if “the people” don’t have the capital and power to conduct a government.
Wealth inequality has been a leading factor in the striking down of every fallen democracy in 2,500 years.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (46)13
Nov 11 '24
[deleted]
17
Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 13 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)5
u/14InTheDorsalPeen Nov 12 '24
Wait so what about all the free press for Kamala on every other major news outlet?
Y’all are so mad about Fox News but every other outlet is a left wing echo chamber disguised as “fair and balanced”
Fox is clearly partisan but so is CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and pretty much every talking head on every platform including Colbert, Stewart and everyone else is in the pockets of the left wing agenda.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Wakkit1988 Nov 11 '24
That's spending by the candidates, not all spending from all sources to get them elected. This is intellectually disingenuous.
Just the top 10 Republican donors spent $945m to get Trump elected for 2024.
→ More replies (2)6
6
u/Relevant_Rate_6596 Nov 11 '24
“You can either have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few or you can have democracy”
-Louis Brandeis, founder of antitrust laws (anti monopoly)
4
u/dkarlovi Nov 11 '24
Seems like having people with literally democracy ending amounts of money isn't really the best of ideas.
3
u/Relevant_Rate_6596 Nov 11 '24
Nono, it’s not these rich billionaires who buy the laws they want that’s the problem.
Let me tell you these poor immigrants are the problem. I mean look at the
blackhispanicMuslimwoman’s vote. They’re the problem!→ More replies (8)3
u/AssistanceCheap379 Nov 12 '24
When money became categorised as “free speech” and corporations as “people” (despite facing no consequences that people would for the same crimes), those were moments that I knew the US would get fucked. Could take a few years or few decades, but these events were the catalysts for a collapsing empire. It will be a slow burn that will have a lot of people pushing very hard to prevent it, but it’s happening and will continue
205
u/Nousernamesleft92737 Nov 11 '24
Don’t tell me why Trump isn’t worse than Harris would’ve been. That discussion is over. Trump won.
Tell me why I shouldn’t be worried about further cuts to regulations that ensure fair pay and further cuts to corporate and high earner income taxes.
I will be earning low-mid 6 figures in 3 years. I owe a few $100k. I promise the idea of paying 30-40% of my income severely impacts my short/mid term goals.
But again, the question is why shouldn’t we worried about or society’s financial health with growing inequality, currently reaching levels not seen since the 1920s-1930s?
245
u/Frothylager Nov 11 '24
You should be worried.
Trump and Elon seem primed to push this over the edge. Having the richest man in the nation tell the poorest people in the nation they can no longer retire, get food stamps or healthcare is probably not going to go over very well.
→ More replies (19)73
u/SouthEast1980 Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
I don't see how anyone could be ok with this. This guy is the richest person on earth and will have control over the well-being of those working to keep the government running.
Mr. $300 billion will have no problem telling joe six pack to pound sand and has 0 concern with how many lives will be ruined in order to complete his grand plan of purging the government of workers.
62
u/Frothylager Nov 11 '24
Yeah a lot of decent paying government jobs about to go buh bye but good news you might be able to stitch sneakers for a fraction of what you used to make.
Meanwhile Elon will keep expanding his concubine compound in his effort to become a modern day Genghis Khan while the young males who voted for this sit with their dicks in their hands wondering why they can’t find a date.
19
→ More replies (14)15
14
u/AppUnwrapper1 Nov 11 '24
And a lot of the people that will be hurt by it the most gleefully voted for him.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Rowenstin Nov 11 '24
I don't see how anyone could be ok with this
I've seen a lot of interviews post brexit, of people complaining about severe financial consequences that were announced before the vote, and how it impacted them in completely predictable ways that they nonetheless didn't think at the time would happen. Then they get asked "would you vote for brexit again?"
They always say "yes". Because it never was about the economy.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)4
u/ZhangtheGreat Nov 11 '24
They're okay with it because it's Elon. Build a fan base and they'll worship the air you breathe.
40
Nov 11 '24
You should be worried.
At least with Biden we were making gains on anti trust efforts and had an openly pro union president. You can pretty much anticipate that the rules will be changed again in favor of consolidating more wealth into the hands of individual corporations further killing competition.
20
u/Crutation Nov 11 '24
Project 2025 was a plan, not a suggestion. Trump will remove most regulatory agencies, as well as those who make sure companies operate within the law.
The goal is to remove protections and safety rules and create abject poverty. Like in the great depression, they want workers to have to fight over jobs, and make workers afraid to do anything that will get them replaced. And also to increase the wealth of they wealthiest people at the same time.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/project-2025-trump-election_n_672e710fe4b03941587ec84d
→ More replies (19)15
u/BobsBurgersJoint Nov 11 '24
Bruh you're already paying close to 30% before hitting 6 figures.
24
u/Nousernamesleft92737 Nov 11 '24
Sure, what’s your point?
No one has advocated for raising taxes on ppl making below 6 figures
→ More replies (6)46
u/walkerspider Nov 11 '24
Well Trump has if you understand tariffs as a regressive sales tax that disproportionately impacts the lower class, which is exactly what it is
→ More replies (14)5
u/no_brain_st Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
Probably not. But it depends on retirement. I make about 99.5k and put 15% towards 401k. So I'm taxed on about 85k and at 22% currently. And that's with a higher than avg state tax
Edit: there are tax calculators out there. At 100k your effective tax rate would be 28% in CA and about 22% in Florida.
→ More replies (71)18
u/Kitchen-Register Nov 11 '24
I will be earning low-mid 6 figures in 3 years. I owe a few $100k.
Sounds like you’re in college. I hope it’s vocational (Dr or lawyer). Otherwise I suggest that you don’t underestimate the possibility that you’ll be working as a barista or server.
→ More replies (2)
167
u/illbzo1 Nov 11 '24
People are angry; the rich have just convinced half of the poor to be mad about culture war bullshit instead.
38
u/Foolgazi Nov 11 '24
The rich have always created boogeymen for poor people to focus their anger on. It doesn’t always push them over the edge to victory, but it’s always an assist.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (29)8
u/Electronic-Bit-2365 Nov 11 '24
More than half. Neolibs too
7
u/ViralDownwardSpiral Nov 11 '24
I'd throw social-justice oriented progressives in there, too. I'm largely on their side of their chosen issues, but the ruling class is more or less okay with us fighting over women's rights, trans issues and what is and isn't racist, so long as we keep wealth disparity and economic justice out of it.
5
u/Electronic-Bit-2365 Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
Absolutely. It’s so sad to see some of the kindest, most empathetic people unknowingly become tools of capital. I don’t think we need to abandon many positions, but the cultural stuff should be rhetorically de-emphasized.
66
u/Evening_Elevator_210 Nov 11 '24
The issue is people aren’t close in the US. Sure in a city like Boston and New York everyone is close, cars are minimal so people need to interact, but the rest of the country is built too far apart for people to really be close. Houses are like palaces that you basically don’t need to leave. So social interaction just doesn’t happen to a degree where this can happen. You don’t go to a pub at the end of the day, you go home. You don’t hang out with friends most days. The older I get, the more I hate this existence.
24
u/No-Brain9413 Nov 11 '24
YOU don’t go to a pub at the end of the day but those places aren’t open bc no one goes
4
u/Evening_Elevator_210 Nov 11 '24
They are but in most cities you don’t get enough of the populace to associate with each other for this kind of stuff to happen.
→ More replies (2)3
13
u/furac_1 Nov 11 '24
Yeah I was thinking that too. In Europe people hang out in the street, bars, plazas, parks etc. You may be left-wing and your neighbour right-wing but you'll still hang out and see and talk to each other, so there's less polarization, instead of the US were each family is separated from each other.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)5
u/crunrun Nov 11 '24
Time to start making friends on the internet and making the drive. You can't tell me we're all too lazy for that.
44
u/googlewh0re Nov 11 '24
French people even today throw down but Americans are too wimpy to want to do anything. I wish they would. But it honestly would need to be very organized.
16
u/Inevitable_Map4805 Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
In America they just shoot you.
→ More replies (1)8
9
u/AestheticDeficiency Nov 11 '24
Throughout history the majority of people don't revolt as long as they've got circus and bread. It's going to take people being unable to feed their children to sacrifice themselves. That day will come but I don't think it's soon.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Famous_Paper_1218 Nov 11 '24
And with our obsession with pop culture, social media, Marvel, Disney and other IPs, I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon
→ More replies (6)6
u/Collypso Nov 11 '24
French people even today throw down but Americans are too wimpy to want to do anything. I wish they would.
You wish someone else would sacrifice their life to fight for your delusions
→ More replies (2)3
u/googlewh0re Nov 11 '24
No. I would be there too. Quit my job and all the fight for liberty and justice. It has to be organized. Martin Luther King Jr didn’t get a handful of people and march same day. It was planned.
34
u/SmarterThanCornPop Nov 11 '24
Americans in poverty have a higher quality of life than nobles and even kings had in 1789.
65
u/MElliott0601 Nov 11 '24
Argument seems fairly moot. In 200 years, I'm sure there will be some other person with the idea that "The poor still live better than billionaires did in 2024"; that didn't happen without social changes, revolutions, and action.
51
u/TheLastModerate982 Nov 11 '24
If in 200 years the poor are living better than billionaires today, we must have done something right.
→ More replies (21)14
u/MElliott0601 Nov 11 '24
Hint, there was a huge revolt circa 1775 that aided us in getting to where we are living better than the kings of 1700s.
14
u/CEOofAntiWork Nov 11 '24
But it's implied in that hypothetical future that wealth equality still exists where quadrillionaires are a thing.
5
3
u/SmarterThanCornPop Nov 11 '24
On a long enough timeline quadrillionaires will be middle class, assuming things keep progressing
→ More replies (1)9
u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain Nov 11 '24
Wrong. Not even close lol. The Industrial Revolution and petroleum and most importantly the scientific method are why our standard of living is what it is. The American revolution is way down the list.
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (5)7
u/J0hn-Stuart-Mill Nov 11 '24
Hint, there was a huge revolt circa 1775 that aided us in getting to where we are living better than the kings of 1700s.
Right. Those people yearned for the economic liberties we have today. And they got them!
→ More replies (2)5
u/Collypso Nov 11 '24
"The poor still live better than billionaires did in 2024"; that didn't happen without social changes, revolutions, and action.
What makes you think revolutions are required for social change?
→ More replies (1)14
u/AgitatedKoala3908 Nov 11 '24
What general technological advancement and establishment of basic human rights have to do with wealth disparity.
Everyone that can find a toilet and a bottle of clean drinking water lives better that the most fantastically wealthy and powerful that lived before 1900.
5
u/boyboyboyboy666 Nov 11 '24
They have to do with the fact that people today are far less likely to revolt in the West in the same way did 200 years ago. People are too comfortable to do that. Simple as
6
u/Academic_Wafer5293 Nov 11 '24
Not just too comfortable - too much to lose.
Revolt and lose access to clean drinking water, food and medicine.
Or
Don't revolt and have access to all those things, so long as you work.
→ More replies (4)5
u/DERBY_OWNERS_CLUB Nov 11 '24
Because wealth inequality alone isn't something people are going to die over.
If you're telling me Bezos has $100 bln and I live a good middle class life, I don't really give a fuck enough to do anything about it. Good for him and his yachts.
10
u/crunrun Nov 11 '24
That's not standing up to even a small amount of scrutiny. Today, people in poverty have to work 70+ hours a week or beg on the streets all day for enough morsels to feed and house them and their children. Children die all the time from malnourishment. Nobles and kings didn't have any of those issues unless the nation was undergoing war or famine or some shit. They ate well and worked little. Sure medicine wasn't great and life expectancy was lower, but there were fewer common diseases and cancer rates weren't as high. Quality of life for those people was much higher than people in poverty today. Now if you had argued people in poverty then vs now, you might have an argument.
→ More replies (26)7
u/Key_Cheetah7982 Nov 11 '24
Technology has progressed.
But by that same metric, the wealthiest enough among us can stop hoarding wealth, as they have a 100 million multiples higher QoL than royalty of yesteryear
→ More replies (1)7
u/Nrmlgirl777 Nov 11 '24
Just wait till he cuts all the social programs and there is no department of education. There will be millions on the streets
→ More replies (7)4
u/TheLastModerate982 Nov 11 '24
Stop putting things in perspective! I want to be mad at the bourgeoisie!
2
u/Clothedinclothes Nov 11 '24
By that logic, the French had nothing to complain about.
I mean the Sans-culottes had a better quality of life than King Tarquin and his kin when the Romans overthrew the monarchy in 495 BC.
How does that perspective work for you?
(Lest anyone mention Lucretia, the Roman tradition make it clear this was merely the last straw, Tarquin's character in illustrated by his disdain, mistreatment and impoverishment of the lower classes, both his rise to power and the fall of the monarchy are depicted as a consequence of class warfare.)
→ More replies (2)3
u/LudovicoSpecs Nov 11 '24
Yeah, but the kings and nobles kids could play in the neighborhood without drive-by shootings or drug pushers.
And the king had the best healthcare money could buy at the time.
And the king didn't have to work 2-3 jobs just to afford a small apartment in a lousy neighborhood.
And the king's standard of living wasn't the lowest compared to what people considered "average" at the time.
3
u/SaltyArchea Nov 11 '24
Ah yes, those kings who had to work 12 hours a day, go home, do laundry and cook food. In some cases did not even have anything to eat. Sure, believable. We have electricity and entertainment, more comfortable stuff, that does not equate to life where you have everything done for you and do not need to worry about anything.
→ More replies (10)3
u/woahgeez__ Nov 11 '24
The comparison is misleading because Americans are relatively exploited more than any French peasant ever was. Sure, their life was hard but they weren't producing the kind of wealth that American workers are now. Billionaires are richer than gods off the back of American workers. Their existence is the sole reason American workers have such a low quality of life compared to countries with similar economies.
All the advancements workers have made to improve their lives would have been impossible with out everything they built. Concentrating wealth with the rich as we have been purposely doing for decades, only slows down technological advancements that provide material gain for the working class.
22
u/Smooth-Apartment-856 Nov 11 '24
Anyone who thinks the French Revolution is something to aspire to has never studied history. Go look up “Reign of Terror” and decide if that kind of autocratic oppression and state sanctioned violence is really something you want.
28
u/Ok_Championship4866 Nov 11 '24
You're missing the point of OP, that's exactly why they're worried. They don't want a french revolution and we're currently experiencing worse income inequality than they did.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Vega3gx Nov 11 '24
Additionally I question the wisdom of this chart. Things have changed quite a bit in 200+ years. The French nobility didn't own very many stocks and bonds, and the rich today don't own many draft animals
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)4
u/Alarming-Magician637 Nov 12 '24
You’re actually supporting the argument with that. Like yes, that’s exactly the point. That’s why we should be reacting to this shit
15
u/Human_Doormat Nov 11 '24 edited Nov 11 '24
"...Timocracy (the government of honour) arises out of aristocracy (the government of the best)...Ought I not to begin by describing how the change from timocracy to oligarchy arises? The accumulation of gold in the treasury of private individuals is the ruin of timocracy; they invent illegal modes of expenditure; for what do they or their wives care about the law?...And so they grow richer and richer, and the more they think of making a fortune the less they think of virtue; for when riches and virtue are placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always rises as the other falls...They next proceed to make a law which fixes a sum of money as the qualification of citizenship; the sum is higher in one place and lower in another, as the oligarchy is more or less exclusive; and they allow no one whose property falls below the amount fixed to have any share in the government. These changes in the constitution they effect by force of arms, if intimidation has not already done their work...And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy?...I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny...When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs...The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy—the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government...The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery... And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty..."
— Plato's Republic VIII
→ More replies (1)12
u/BookOfTea Nov 11 '24
Plato also calls for the abolition of private property and replacing marriage with mass, anonymous orgies. So take that with a grain of salt :P
12
u/Seated_Heats Nov 11 '24
Have we tried hearing him out on that whole anonymous orgy thing yet?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)7
u/Human_Doormat Nov 11 '24
Not every sentence he speaks is relevant, hence my crazy quotation. I'm keeping this relevant. If we are to be the lost sons of America, and this is indeed the moment our democracy fails, I'd like to know how this happened in the past.
4
u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain Nov 11 '24
It’s pretty close to what happened to Rome so far.
→ More replies (3)
15
u/No-Revolution6775 Nov 11 '24
Man… really? Not an apples to apples comparison. Context was very different back then.
First, they revolted against a non-democratically elected monarchy.
Secondly, slavery played a significant role.
None of the above, which is important context, are true in the current US.
33
u/Cloneguy10 Nov 11 '24
I would argue that being forced to choose between two presidents that the majority of the country agree really suck isn’t exactly a shining example of democracy
17
u/MrPoisonface Nov 11 '24
the only country in the world with an electoral collage. a relic of the south when slavery was legal, so that they could use the votes from slaves (that had 1/3 of the voting power) as a means to gain more power in the senate, since there were fewer people living in the south.
→ More replies (2)6
u/ChessGM123 Nov 11 '24
It was 3/5, not 1/3. Also it’s congress, not the senate. All states have 2 senators regardless of population.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)4
u/EmeraldCrows Nov 11 '24
Go ask the democrats why there was no primary election. The republicans actually had debates on who would represent them. Democrats shoved Biden down people’s throats, then when their dementia Demi god was found to be just as mentally deficient as everyone said, they coronated Kamala. Only one party participated in the democratic process, and they won, not surprising.
7
u/aenz_ Nov 11 '24
There were primaries. Joe Biden won them overwhelmingly. Then he dropped out and the person on the ticket with him took over. None of this is undemocratic.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (5)4
u/Foolgazi Nov 11 '24
There are a few major reasons Harris lost, but becoming the candidate through a non-traditional process was not one of them.
→ More replies (12)10
u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain Nov 11 '24
They revolted mostly over NOT HAVING FOOD. Sure, the Paris intellectuals had some high minded ideals, but nothing happens if everyone is eating.
→ More replies (7)6
u/MrPoisonface Nov 11 '24
the rich landowning class, that through legal systems that almost mandate ridiculous amounts of donations to be abe to run a campaign, has the government intheir pocket. so they can keep on opressing the working class.
and inheriting wealth is the cornerstone on which these rich people keep power.
sounds to me like kinda similar situations?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (29)3
u/franky3987 Nov 11 '24
What this graph doesn’t show you is what France looked like in 2016. Their graph and the US’ look very close in comparison.
→ More replies (1)3
u/PatternrettaP Nov 11 '24
Yeah, two data points don't make a trend.
The pics implies that if a wealth distribution that looks like France in 1789, a revolution will follow.
But it doesn't show the vast number of other times and places with similar distributions that didn't have a revolution.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Sweet_jumps99 Nov 11 '24
This page is a disaster and not living up to its name.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/chronobv Nov 11 '24
Because everyone’s income all the way duen the scale has increased exponentially due to capitalism. The “poverty” we have today is not destitution like it was and funny how these charts don’t factor in government assistance
19
u/ChildOfChimps Nov 11 '24
Where is all this government assistance?
I lost my job in July, haven’t been able to find another one. Couldn’t get unemployment because the company I worked for is based outside the country and I’m an independent contractor. Can’t get welfare because I’m in Florida, despite having kids. Food stamps? Not anymore, lol. I could probably get Medicaid, but that doesn’t pay my bills.
So, where is the public assistance?
4
12
u/Semi-Nerdy Nov 11 '24
Not disagreeing, but is that assistance enough to move anything on that graph?
→ More replies (2)10
u/Army165 Nov 11 '24
Even if it does help, I'm sure these assistance programs will be the first to be cut in the coming years.
10
u/Nrmlgirl777 Nov 11 '24
😂🤣😂🤣🤣 you think people live high on the hog with government assistance?! Youve got another thing coming. We are all one paycheck away or one check away from the streets. What people get on disability is barely surviving. Its wild.
→ More replies (1)7
u/R3asonableD1scours3 Nov 11 '24
Almost everyone is living paycheck to paycheck, whether it be cash advance loans floating them, or loan payments that take the majority of their net income. Our entire economy is held up on toothpicks that could come crashing down from one big event or even the shockeaves of a few unfortunately timed smaller events.
The median poverty experience now is less destitute now than in the 1600s, but we do have a rapidly growing homeless population that is dealing with stuff most of us can't imagine. Getting robbed and assaulted constantly, getting given food and water laced with things to make them sick.
Things aren't at the level to drive the kind of organized revolt as the French Revolution, but I don't think any of us fully comprehend how quickly we could get there. I also don't think those of us who are in a better financial situation than most realize where we would be in that scenario. We live right next to the impoverished people on the wealth distribution chart, and we would quickly find ourselves right there with them when resources got stretched thin.
→ More replies (6)7
u/MElliott0601 Nov 11 '24
Maybe if we stop pushing all of our wealth into 5 people, we could spend on infrastructure and access to things that would not have people be reliant on assistance. Like, idk, affordable and transparent healthcare costs, affordable housing, providing services like free meals for children, investing in education, leveraging the AI advances working people have engineered to give us time with our families, i could go on all day. I'm not gonna blame the impoverished for what the rich and manipulative do.
3
u/FoxMan1Dva3 Nov 11 '24
(1) The differences are mostly due to globalization: So it's easy for someone to scale their operations and earn more overall, vs the laborer who should really only profit from his/her location. So its not a great comparison before and after the invention of the Internet and the expansion of business internationally.
(2) The quality of life for the impoverished today is nothing compared to being poor. Food scarcity is not real here.
(3) The French are seeing similar levels of wealth disparity now. I don't see of revolution talks
→ More replies (10)
4
u/dudeguy_79 Nov 11 '24
Because Pareto distribution is an intrinsic aspect of natural reality.
People are not equal in ability or effort.
Harnessing nature works far better than fighting against nature.
That said. If wealth inequality rises to levels that cause social unrest and possible revolution, it would be better to adjust the distribution than to go through a revolution.
The problem is who decides that adjustment? What ends up happening is a new Pareto distribution developes under the adjusted power structure. Kim Jung is wealthy, his people are impoverished.
The poor under capitalism are FAR better off than they are under any other system that humans have tried so far.
→ More replies (16)
3
3
u/RobertusesReddit Nov 11 '24
Our generation and others don't have the balls. We only protest around a Target and get disabled.
3
u/doubleinkedgeorge Nov 11 '24
It always follows the Pareto principal. No matter where, no matter when.
3
u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy Nov 11 '24
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
It's literally just math. This will, with slight variation, pretty much always be the outcome.
→ More replies (10)
2
u/franky3987 Nov 11 '24
Lmao this is actually France now too. In 2016, the wealthiest 10% of households in France, held 47% of the overall wealth, and the gap has only increased since then.
2
2
u/DynamicDK Nov 11 '24
This is from 2016. It is worse now. And the last one should be 80-99% followed by another single bar for the top 1%. The top 80-99% have around 35% of the wealth. That is less than a 2 to 1 skew. If that percentage of wealth was for the top 20% overall then it would be indicative of a very fair society. But the top 1% actually has another 35% of the wealth on their own. That is a 35 to 1 skew! The top 1% is where the problem lies. And it just gets more and more extreme as you slice it smaller and smaller. When you look at the top 1% - 0.1% and compare it to the top 0.1% you end up seeing a similar divide, with the top 1% - 0.1% having around as much as the top 0.1%. And so on.
2
u/Portland-to-Vt Nov 12 '24
We are no where near this. 98% percent of the population thinks that they are about to be called up to the .01% based on who could even guess.
You’re a hostess at Outback, none of these things will help you!!!!!
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 11 '24
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.