Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Government cannot sit in isolation from the market because what happens in the "free market" has a deep impact on society. If the wages that you pay are so shit you cant support yourself then the government steps in to make up the difference.Because, despite their promises, behavior is driven by incentives. If politicians can make or break a business by passing a law, that business will do everything in its power to influence the politicians' decisions. Progressives want to expand the power of government to regulate business. If we want money out of politics, we need to do the opposite. We need to strictly and consistently limit the power of government to meddle with markets.I guess you hear what you want to hear. But that's not my concern at all. My concern is the same as yours. Collusion between business and government undermines free society.Get money out of politics, simple. Elect progressives. Get every establishment democrat out of office and every single republican.
Electing progressives won't get money out of politics. They want even more government control of our wealth.
What "wealth" do you have, that they want so badly?
None of your fucking business?
But I wasn't referring to myself. The general desire of progressives is to grant government more control over picking winners and losers in the economy. Which attracts ever more collusion between the state and economic interests. That makes "money in politics" problem worse.
You know what that sounds like? A made up doomsday narrative from ppl like yourself, who fear the government is coming to take away all imaginary Bezos wealth they will one day finally accrue in their dreams.
But it's a two way street. The more government tries to control markets, the more the participants in those markets will try to control government. Most large businesses these days budget for lobbying government. It's a key part of their businesses strategy because it has to be. If they're not playing that game, they lose.
Progressives have all but promised not to take money from special interests and that seems to be holding true as more and more are elected into office. By very definition, it would eliminate money from politics altogether, at least, as long, as they are in control. How does that make "money in politics" worse?
How does rolling back tax cuts for the super wealthy enable "more money in politics"?
Because it gives wealthy people more incentive to back, and fund, candidates who will oppose the rollback. Even if those candidates are despicable people otherwise.
The same can be said, and was said, about religion. It was a powerful force that had a deep impact on society, and ambitious politicians were jealous of that power. But we decided, correctly in my view, that combining religious and state power put too much power in too few hands and coerced people in a way that wasn't justified. Further, combining conflicting interests made corruption inevitable. These exact same dynamics are at play when we try to co-opt economic power with the state. We should reject it for the same reasons.Government cannot sit in isolation from the market because what happens in the "free market" has a deep impact on society.
But the economy should work for the "people". When it doesnt the people see their arse and start rioting. The people get crushed by the large corporations and the government is the only entity to protect us from that. I cannot see an alternative. Who will stop corporations poisoning our rivers or building unsafe houses ? Who will protect our environment and ensure we have clean air ?The same can be said, and was said, about religion. It was a powerful force that had a deep impact on society, and ambitious politicians were jealous of that power. But we decided, correctly in my view, that combining religious and state power put too much power in too few hands and coerced people in a way that wasn't justified. Further, combining conflicting interests made corruption inevitable. These exact same dynamics are at play when we try to co-opt economic power with the state. We should reject it for the same reasons.Government cannot sit in isolation from the market because what happens in the "free market" has a deep impact on society.
But the economy should work for the "people". When it doesnt the people see their arse and start rioting. The people get crushed by the large corporations and the government is the only entity to protect us from that. I cannot see an alternative.The same can be said, and was said, about religion. It was a powerful force that had a deep impact on society, and ambitious politicians were jealous of that power. But we decided, correctly in my view, that combining religious and state power put too much power in too few hands and coerced people in a way that wasn't justified. Further, combining conflicting interests made corruption inevitable. These exact same dynamics are at play when we try to co-opt economic power with the state. We should reject it for the same reasons.Government cannot sit in isolation from the market because what happens in the "free market" has a deep impact on society.
Who will stop corporations poisoning our rivers or building unsafe houses ? Who will protect our environment and ensure we have clean air ?
It isnt a different concern,its a part of that concern.But the economy should work for the "people". When it doesnt the people see their arse and start rioting. The people get crushed by the large corporations and the government is the only entity to protect us from that. I cannot see an alternative.The same can be said, and was said, about religion. It was a powerful force that had a deep impact on society, and ambitious politicians were jealous of that power. But we decided, correctly in my view, that combining religious and state power put too much power in too few hands and coerced people in a way that wasn't justified. Further, combining conflicting interests made corruption inevitable. These exact same dynamics are at play when we try to co-opt economic power with the state. We should reject it for the same reasons.Government cannot sit in isolation from the market because what happens in the "free market" has a deep impact on society.
Yep. All the same arguments were used to justify the state taking over religion:
"Butthe economyreligion should work for the "people". When it doesnt the people see their arse and start rioting. The people get crushed by the largecorporationschurches and the government is the only entity to protect us from that. I cannot see an alternative.
Who will stop corporations poisoning our rivers or building unsafe houses ? Who will protect our environment and ensure we have clean air ?
Government has a role to play. It should police corporations, just as it does the rest of us. They should be held accountable for pollution, fraud, negligence etc... but that's an entirely different concern than making sure the economy works "for the people".
And I disagree. Preventing a corporation, or anyone really, from violating the rights of others is different that simply dictating to the market in the name of majority rule.It isnt a different concern,its a part of that concern.But the economy should work for the "people". When it doesnt the people see their arse and start rioting. The people get crushed by the large corporations and the government is the only entity to protect us from that. I cannot see an alternative.The same can be said, and was said, about religion. It was a powerful force that had a deep impact on society, and ambitious politicians were jealous of that power. But we decided, correctly in my view, that combining religious and state power put too much power in too few hands and coerced people in a way that wasn't justified. Further, combining conflicting interests made corruption inevitable. These exact same dynamics are at play when we try to co-opt economic power with the state. We should reject it for the same reasons.Government cannot sit in isolation from the market because what happens in the "free market" has a deep impact on society.
Yep. All the same arguments were used to justify the state taking over religion:
"Butthe economyreligion should work for the "people". When it doesnt the people see their arse and start rioting. The people get crushed by the largecorporationschurches and the government is the only entity to protect us from that. I cannot see an alternative.
Who will stop corporations poisoning our rivers or building unsafe houses ? Who will protect our environment and ensure we have clean air ?
Government has a role to play. It should police corporations, just as it does the rest of us. They should be held accountable for pollution, fraud, negligence etc... but that's an entirely different concern than making sure the economy works "for the people".
Because, despite their promises, behavior is driven by incentives. If politicians can make or break a business by passing a law, that business will do everything in its power to influence the politicians' decisions. Progressives want to expand the power of government to regulate business. If we want money out of politics, we need to do the opposite. We need to strictly and consistently limit the power of government to meddle with markets.I guess you hear what you want to hear. But that's not my concern at all. My concern is the same as yours. Collusion between business and government undermines free society.Get money out of politics, simple. Elect progressives. Get every establishment democrat out of office and every single republican.
Electing progressives won't get money out of politics. They want even more government control of our wealth.
What "wealth" do you have, that they want so badly?
None of your fucking business?
But I wasn't referring to myself. The general desire of progressives is to grant government more control over picking winners and losers in the economy. Which attracts ever more collusion between the state and economic interests. That makes "money in politics" problem worse.
You know what that sounds like? A made up doomsday narrative from ppl like yourself, who fear the government is coming to take away all imaginary Bezos wealth they will one day finally accrue in their dreams.
But it's a two way street. The more government tries to control markets, the more the participants in those markets will try to control government. Most large businesses these days budget for lobbying government. It's a key part of their businesses strategy because it has to be. If they're not playing that game, they lose.
Progressives have all but promised not to take money from special interests and that seems to be holding true as more and more are elected into office. By very definition, it would eliminate money from politics altogether, at least, as long, as they are in control. How does that make "money in politics" worse?
How does rolling back tax cuts for the super wealthy enable "more money in politics"?
Because it gives wealthy people more incentive to back, and fund, candidates who will oppose the rollback. Even if those candidates are despicable people otherwise.
Government cannot sit in isolation from the market because what happens in the "free market" has a deep impact on society. If the wages that you pay are so shit you cant support yourself then the government steps in to make up the difference.Because, despite their promises, behavior is driven by incentives. If politicians can make or break a business by passing a law, that business will do everything in its power to influence the politicians' decisions. Progressives want to expand the power of government to regulate business. If we want money out of politics, we need to do the opposite. We need to strictly and consistently limit the power of government to meddle with markets.I guess you hear what you want to hear. But that's not my concern at all. My concern is the same as yours. Collusion between business and government undermines free society.Get money out of politics, simple. Elect progressives. Get every establishment democrat out of office and every single republican.
Electing progressives won't get money out of politics. They want even more government control of our wealth.
What "wealth" do you have, that they want so badly?
None of your fucking business?
But I wasn't referring to myself. The general desire of progressives is to grant government more control over picking winners and losers in the economy. Which attracts ever more collusion between the state and economic interests. That makes "money in politics" problem worse.
You know what that sounds like? A made up doomsday narrative from ppl like yourself, who fear the government is coming to take away all imaginary Bezos wealth they will one day finally accrue in their dreams.
But it's a two way street. The more government tries to control markets, the more the participants in those markets will try to control government. Most large businesses these days budget for lobbying government. It's a key part of their businesses strategy because it has to be. If they're not playing that game, they lose.
Progressives have all but promised not to take money from special interests and that seems to be holding true as more and more are elected into office. By very definition, it would eliminate money from politics altogether, at least, as long, as they are in control. How does that make "money in politics" worse?
How does rolling back tax cuts for the super wealthy enable "more money in politics"?
Because it gives wealthy people more incentive to back, and fund, candidates who will oppose the rollback. Even if those candidates are despicable people otherwise.
How is that fair to the tax payer ?
This video essay captures the root of America's biggest problem w/addressing crises...
What's your take after watching the video and how do we begin to address resolving these issues?
That the video is absolutely correct and we have a lot of work to do in America to get the country where it needs to be.What are YOUR thoughts of the video, OP?
Why didn't you say that initially?That the video is absolutely correct and we have a lot of work to do in America to get the country where it needs to be.What are YOUR thoughts of the video, OP?
It's overrun by the hard rightwing in both parties. One is rightwing, the other one is extremely radical rightwing.
Lot's of work to do.
Weak sauceNo one asked.Why didn't you say that initially?
This video essay captures the root of America's biggest problem w/addressing crises...
What's your take after watching the video and how do we begin to address resolving these issues?
"Crisis mismanagement."....
Yet you're exactly the kind of stupid asshole who demands that the mismanagers (as long as they're on your team) keep getting more money and power to keep mismanaging.
Fuck you....Right up the ass with a red hot poker.
This video essay captures the root of America's biggest problem w/addressing crises...
What's your take after watching the video and how do we begin to address resolving these issues?
"Crisis mismanagement."....
Yet you're exactly the kind of stupid asshole who demands that the mismanagers (as long as they're on your team) keep getting more money and power to keep mismanaging.
Fuck you....Right up the ass with a red hot poker.
So you have no solutions or ideas, you just want to be a dick. Typical.
