The poorer are getting richer, too. But the rich gets richer faster. I don't see a problem with it, but it's funny to see how besides having more regulations, higher taxes and more government intervention (most of the time in the name of making society more equal) increases inequality at a faster rate just to see the very same people saying "we need higher taxes and more government intervention!"
Tax cuts always have a higher impact on the wealthy because, well, they pay more taxes.
This isn’t a bad thing. That money won’t dissapear. It’ll get spent or invested (either directly or indirectly by a bank if saved).
Tax cuts are good. Stop saying they’re bad. The wealthy always find loopholes because they can afford lawyers and accountats to deduct taxes or skip taxes through offshore companies, so it’s the not-so-wealthy who have a yet bigger impact but not so directly visible.
They closed import/export for the private sector. Only federal government handles it. Which led to export just oil (inefficiently if I may add), so when priced collapsed they had to decide if pay debt and face hunger, or fight hunger and face a financial default. Guess which one they decided?
There’s a lot of hate and resentment in that article. Sure, maybe Bodega isn’t the brightest startup. But who cares? If it’s a bad idea, nature/market will make it go away.
If bodegas/corner stores whatever are worth it, people will continue to buy from there and Bodega nor any other “shiny” startup will stand a chance against them.
My guess is she doesn’t believe in freemarket and thinks that someone can simply kill corner stores by throwing money at a startup.
I'm not sure it is a race issue. Times were different. People are now accepting that drug consumption doesn't make you a criminal.
At some point Britain thought that wealthy highly-educated people were incapable of being criminals, until time proved them wrong. Science is always evolving.
>You can't control for every variable in a market. It just isn't possible. Even economic "laws" like supply and demand have counter examples like Giffen goods.
That's the whole point. Markets are decentralized brains, while Socialism advocates that a government as a central planner will be more efficient (it could be more efficient in specific cases like total war or natural disasters) and lead to Communism where we won't even need a government because society will behave as one being.
Quite the opposite. Everyone praises Karl Marx and Keynes, although they been proven wrong many times. Most Millenials think that Capitalism and freemarkets are evil, while Socialism is good. History has proven otherwise
I used to think the same as you when I still was a student. “How can these people critize the wonders of college? I’m learning so much!”. Then I realized I learnt nothing.
Disclaimer: it wasn’t a fancy college, but still.
I just think education needs some sort of revolution
Aren't you using your own version? The original meaning of left and right is the French Revolution, where people who sat on the left wanted revolution and people who sat on the right wanted to keep the status quo. People who sat in the center wanted a little bit of both. Then the definition transitioned to left being collectivism and right being capitalism.
But for some reason a good portion of academia (to not say most) labeled right as authoritarian and violent, and left as humanitarian and progressive. Hell, even Wikipedia and Google definitions says that national socialism is a far right-wing movement. So I don't blame you, definitions are a bit messy
Well, I can list a few incompatibilities if you want:
* Right-wing is usually in favor of free market and free enterprise, whilst NSAP stole private property (mostly from Jews) and heavily controlled the economy, also got out of the international financial system.
* Right-wing is usually against gun controls, whilst NSAP was very gun control.
* Right-wing is usually pro free speech for everyone no matter what. NSAP was not pro free speech. Government literally ran the media.
* Right-wing is mostly against welfare state, while NSAP was very pro welfare state. In fact Otto von Bismarck (a personal hero for Hitler) was the creator of the welfare state as we know it.
They do, however share some nationalism views and don't like open borders, and think that protectionism is ok. So there's that.
I don't read Breitbart (nor most media tbh), but I just skimmed through this site and can't find anything related to national socialism. It just looks like another right-wing news site, being that national socialism is a center-wing political stance, I think it is incompatible in principle.
Do you have any link of them claiming to be nazis or taking nazis stances about something? Or do you just call nazi anyone who disagrees with you? Not trying to pick a fight, just honestly asking.
Higher profits aren't a bad thing. Higher profits mean higher taxes paid, higher profits also mean more money put into work (personal investments or by third parties, i.e. put in a bank and the bank makes their own investments or loans it). Higher profits means wealth is being generated. Contrary to popular belief, minimum wage does not distribute wealth, but rather excludes those who have less, therefore helps accumulating wealth.
Minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be a job for life. It's an entry level job. If you want higher paid jobs, you need to earn it. Minimum wage increase causes unemployment, you end helping a few at the expense of others who happen to need help the most.
>It is a market inefficiency caused by zoning density restrictions and overuse of historic landmark status which creates a politically induced artificial scarcity in housing (scarcity = rising prices).
Then it is a government inefficiency, not a market inefficiency