• jorp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Classic brain-dead centrist perspective thanks for sharing.

      • jorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        here are two arguments:

        1. Your stance is based on the idea that both sides have equal merit
        2. You have no principles or independent thought

        you can pick the exact middle

        • samokosik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

            • samokosik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

                • samokosik@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  13
                  ·
                  2 months ago

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

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.

                Ooooooooo scary!

                Totally the same thing as literally exterminating entire groups of people based on characteristics they were born with.

                In all seriousness though, you should look at what Finland has done regarding “public housing,” and how great it has been for them. Spoiler alert, they’re actually really nice, and affordable. Because nobody is looking to maximize a profit.

                But please, let me know how “Finland is much smaller than the US, therefore impossible.”

                • samokosik@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

                  • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    And how do you think they became prosperous? You have to give people the chance to spend money to have a growing economy, otherwise everyone’s keeping money for later and nothings flowing.

              • jorp@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                lol yes ok very dangerous and equivalent to fascism understood

                my opinion of centrists has completely flipped, I totally get why “spending too much” and “enforcing an ethnic hierarchy” are the same degree of evil

                snark aside: you should reflect about what exactly money is, what it’s used for and what it represents, and how a government spending its own legal tender differs from household finances.

        • samokosik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

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

          • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            What extreme views are coming from the left side?

            The right side is fascism, the left side is plans to raise the monthly minimum wage, impose price ceilings on essential foods, electricity, gas and petrol, repeal Macron’s deeply unpopular decision to raise the retirement age to 64, and invest massively in the green transition and public services.

            How are those ‘exteme’ and ‘dangerous’?

            • samokosik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Raising the standard of living and improving the purchasing power of the individual DOES improve the economy because it enables more people to spend more on foods and services. They are financed by raising taxes on the ultra wealthy and corporations. The money is already earned, the difference it whether it gets pocketed and horded by executives or recirculated into the economy by improving the standard of living of the populace

                • samokosik@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                That’s not how modern monetary policy works, by the way. The US dollar has a ton of power worldwide for many reasons, so we determine what our money is worth, period. This is why every time the US government has spent money on “demand side” solutions (stimulus checks, etc.) they have provided nothing but upside.

                This little trick that capitalists don’t want you to know about: it’s all bullshit. They want us to keep injecting cash into failing banks rather than just paying for people’s garbage mortgages.

                We owe nothing to nobody because those debts will never be paid (who would they even be paid to?).

                There is zero practical reason (beyond “oh no, billionaires and multinational corporations need to pay taxes wahhh”) that we cannot spend as much money as we like on every social program we like. Prove me wrong (or just read about “Modern Monetary Theory” as I’m not an economist).

                • samokosik@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  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?

                  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Greece doesn’t have the largest economy in the world. Their currency isn’t the Petrodollar like USD is. The world economy runs on USD. I don’t think you understand just how much power and freedom that affords us with regards to spending. Not your fault because it’s been hammered into us for decades by “fiscal conservatives.” But the actual reality is that we have far more control over these things than those people want you to think.

                    The only way spending on social programs could ever possibly tank the US economy is if billionaires and corporations purposely did so out of spite, and desire to return to the times when they could get away with being robber barons (AKA right now). And unfortunately, it would probably work.

                    That said, even if you don’t believe that Modern Monetary Theory is real (again, you should read about it from actual economists, not me), we could very easily take care of every person in this country, legal or not, if we even modestly reduced our “defense” budget, and properly taxed corporations and the uber-wealthy.