• Baguette@lemm.ee
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    38 minutes ago

    Yea big gains for current billionaires which as far as trump is concerned are the only people he cares about

  • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Trump would say shit tastes amazing, and his base would start eating shit every day until they get sick. They would never say he was wrong when he so clearly is.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Worth the cost for what, exactly? everything was okay until you opened Pandora s box and started throwing worms literally everywhere.

    Your government is in chaos, your country is in chaos, you even made the World mi chaos and now you want a recession because…?

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      everything was okay

      It certainly wasn’t. Not that Trump is going to make anything better of course; it’s worse from here on out

  • MLX@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    ·
    1 day ago

    Crashing the economy is literally the point, then his rich asshole friends can acquire a ton of stocks and property while its value is low and when the adults fix it 4 years from now all his friends that got him elected will still win.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I voted for Trump because he said he would AVOID a Recession! And I’m TOTALLY ON BOARD with a Recession NOW because I think for Myself!

  • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    1 day ago

    Not only economists, but everyone with awareness who uses logical thinking.

    Such headlines irritate me because it still offers a modicum of validity to crazy, upon casual reading.

    Environmentalist disapprove of spraying cyanide on crops” would be a more obvious example.

    • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Except that the ultra rich ARE fine with a serious recession, they WANT one so they can buy up shit for cheap and consolidate power.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

      The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is a 2007 book by Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein. In the book, Klein argues that neoliberal economic policies promoted by Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics have risen to global prominence because of a deliberate strategy she calls “disaster capitalism”. In this strategy, political actors exploit the chaos of natural disasters, wars, and other crises to push through unpopular policies such as deregulation and privatization. This economic “shock therapy” favors corporate interests while disadvantaging and disenfranchising citizens when they are too distracted and overwhelmed to respond or resist effectively.

      This is VERY rational from the perspective of the ultrawealthy (it is really the only strategy they actually want to use if possible) it is just murderous and cruel.

      The US economy is about to crash, this is the goal.

      • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 day ago

        And they will get away with it if the majority of people still find themselves unable to act years from now.

        In this county, politics as normal has failed and cannot be redeemed at all. Something new has to happen; what I don’t know, a missing ingredient.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Somehow, I hope, even pray, that we will avoid a violent revolution. Which has got to sound just asinine, I know; but I figure Mango Mussolini is specifically trying to cause an uprising to give iron clad “justification” for implementing martial law (and cancelling elections, of course, for “security”).

          I dunno, I guess I’ve got this utterly foolish notion that if the mask off fascist society fails to “gel together”, we could, I dunno, have a relatively peaceful dissolution of the federal government, leaving each state it’s own nation. I do not want this, it’s a fucked up resolution that will still cause massive poverty and unrest.

          Better than being led into WW3 by a retarded Cheeto, however…😝

  • Hello_there@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 day ago

    The rich pick up assets during g every crash, widening inequality. We need a wealth tax to start reversing some of those gains

      • Hello_there@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 day ago

        Wealth tax over $10M or even 100M would still do massive good. If we can hit billionaires and reinvest that in the working class, the economy is going to go crazy

        • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          My dream policy would be a wealth tax that includes company ownership that could be paid with company shares. Any shares paid this way would go to an escrow that is controlled by the employees of the company, eventually trending companies towards becoming worker coops.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        The 99% don’t have any unrealized gains to begin with. Even people near the top end of that scale who do have investments have all or most of them in retirement accounts where the gains eventually get taxed as income (traditional) or not at all (Roth) instead.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Nearly every homeowner has unrealized gains in their house value.

          Edit: Also, all these unrealized gains of the very rich would also be taxed when transacted, like the retirement funds, but there are loopholes. They can leverage that wealth without “realizing” the value.

        • earphone843@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Unrealized gains means that the investment vehicle has increased in value since it was purchased, but hasn’t been sold at that value. Every type of investment is going to have either unrealized gains or losses until it’s sold.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        There’s also the option of additional tax brackets for those wealthy whose income still counts as income. Why do the tax brackets stop? Massachusetts has one set $1M that’s doing pretty well

        • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          It’s not a question of collapse but rather whether said wealth tax causes more capital flight and or evasion/avoidance than it brings in. If enough wealth leaves your country that your tax base is lower and tax revenues are down then that tax isn’t working.

          Im not familiar enough with the Netherlands economy or tax structure to talk about it

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yes, absolutely. Coming out of the great depression we clawed back so much, but that’s been slowly dismantled and we’re back in the roaring 20s now

        Things are more complicated now, but there’s certainly ways to do this if we have politicians who will fight to carry out our will

        • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Can you provide evidence of concrete examples of specific taxes or articles in the form of an academic economic journal that backs that claim? All of the economics and history of economics that I have studied suggests wealth taxes are very ineffective which is why historically speaking they get axed.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            I mean… Fuck economic theory, the entire field is a mess of myths and narratives. There’s good work to be sure, but governments and organizations just find models that support what they want to do, no matter how much it conflicts with observations

            There’s historical examples in this country, there’s modern examples like the Scandinavian model… Wealth was redistributed, there’s

            I have no idea what you’re asking for. What even is a wealth tax “working” to you?

            I mean I could pull up some economists who go over numbers and adamantly advocate for wealth redistribution, but I feel like nothing I give you is going to actually change your mind

            • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Advocating for wealth distribution isn’t the same as a wealth tax. We typically tax income because that’s much more easily and fairly measured than wealth. A functional wealth tax would be one that didn’t cause greater rates of capital flight and tax evasion/avoidance than the amount of revenue it creates.

              Frankly, you start off by declaring economic theory to be a “mess of myths and narratives” which doesn’t suggest you have an understanding of the subject. The fact I need to explain what a tax working is and correct you on the difference between supporting redistribution vs backing a wealth tax further supports the idea that maybe you shouldn’t be talking dismissively about a subject you don’t seem to be well versed on.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                15 hours ago

                I never said anything about income tax… But again, these are real things that we used to have and they have elsewhere:

                Tax brackets to to 90%+ on business profits - incentivize companies to reinvest in r&d while disincentiving investment

                Tax inheritance and crack down on forever trusts

                Progressively tax money moving in and out of the country, and close up tax loopholes (killing the tax filing industry would be a necessary prerequisite)

                You could even revamp capital gains and certain types of loan to somehow figure into a progressive income tax

                And most importantly - this has been done before. It has been done, you can pick apart suggested methods and come up with excuses for why it’s impossible… But it’s so clearly not. Everything else is an engineering problem

                If you want to hear economists talk about it, Garys economics on YouTube popped into my feed a few days ago. He’s far from the only one, even Warren Buffett has gone through a plan where he says the full tax burden could be put on businesses

                And if you want to know why I don’t respect economics… It’s not because I’m not read up on it, it’s because: how can you read up on it and still think taxing the wealthy is impossible? This has been written about by economists for decades, but it doesn’t matter because there’s more convenient economic theories to push far and wide

                • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 hours ago

                  Buddy you started off with “fuck economic theory”. You clearly know almost nothing about the subject. Why are you trying to make claims about a subject you aren’t educated on?

                  We abandoned a lot of those taxes because they weren’t effective. Dropping the top rate from 90% to where it was in 1983 brought in more tax revenue as tax evasion and avoidance dropped. These are the kinds of things you would know if you had an education in macro

            • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              23 hours ago

              I asked if any wealth tax has been effective because I am unaware of any. The person who replied enthusiastically “yes” needs to back that because there could be an example I am unaware of. There is the possibility that I am wrong or mistaken.

              The only person acting in bad faith here is yourself. You should ask yourself why that’s the choice you made.

              • Hello_there@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                23 hours ago

                I don’t know that I agree with the conclusions of the video. But TLDR just did a video outlining some history in UK and concluded ones off wealth taxes have worked and listed two examples

                • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 hours ago

                  Im typically not inclined to cede credibility regarding economic claims to any non-academic source regarding economics. Who is TLDR?

                  edit: There’s zero reason to accept theor analysis as none of them are economists or have a background in the field. This is just a misplaced Appeal to Authority.