- there is a finite amount of money, and that amount money not circulating is bad for reasons I shouldn’t need to explain - that money almost always is not being spent, it’s just hoarded - these billionaires mistreat their workers A LOT because they could afford to materially improve their lives but chose not to - that much money with one person is a threat to democracy for reasons I shouldn’t need to explain Need I continue?

97

Such as Trumps small loan of a million dollars?

78

Anonymous #1 29w

yeah everyone shits on the loan, but could you turn 3 million into hundreds of millions?

7

Anonymous #5 29w

You’re missing the point. How tf is anyone in this current economy who isn’t already wealthy going to get a MILLION DOLLAR LOAN

46

Anonymous #1 29w

also “net worth” isn’t cash they have, it’s all in stocks and it’s unrealized gains.

12

Ok, what’s the social mobility index of America compared to other parts of the world? If it’s truly that easy to make it in America, we should be at or near the top

34

Anonymous #5 29w

Trump is ass as a businessman. He could’ve parked that money in the S&P and sat with his thumb up his ass for 60 years and done better lmao

28

I said social mobility index. It should not be hard to find the most recent report

26

Anonymous #5 29w

I mean if I’m allowed to do a bunch of fraud like he did? Probably yes.

8

Anonymous #1 29w

The government can print infinite money , that’s literally the power they have . So the federal government doesn’t have to “balance the budget” in the same way states do since they can literally just print money. They don’t because inflation, but. Richest man is 100 billion 10 years ago, now 800 billion. Nobody got poorer for that.

4

Anonymous #5 29w

Yeah I could turn 3 million into hundreds of millions if the guy who loaned me the original few million was also my dad, who had hundreds of millions in real estate, and died, leaving me his real estate portfolio lmfao Trump is the exact opposite of the “rags to riches” story that everyone uses to defend people like Bezos lmao

1

Anonymous #3 29w

Underrated comment asf, I forgot they literally did the math and confirmed he would have made more if he just made some basic stock investments 🤣

10

The problem with you “basic economics” mfs is that you never get around to taking advanced economics

1

Small scale conflicts? The ones where we dropped more ordinance than both theaters of WWII combined? Those were small scale?

6

My first macroeconomics professor was from Eastern Europe and on the day we discussed the concept of Inelastic Demand she used healthcare as the example and was like “this is why I think it’s kind of silly that America doesn’t universalize healthcare like other countries, knowing the demand is inelastic” lmfao not every Economist is a supply-side bro

8

America is a big country, with a big economy. The biggest economy. Even per capita, highest GDP in the world. What’s the point in being the richest nation on the planet if you can’t provide for the most basic life and death needs of your people?

8

How come every supply-side freak is alright with throwing infinite tax dollars at weaponry, but as soon as it comes time to talk about actually getting something in return for our tax dollars, suddenly that’s too hard. Suddenly the richest nation on earth has no fuckin money.

8

That conservative platitude at the end there really undermines your broader point, man. Do you think American steel got considerably worse after we took it from Carnegie? Because it didn’t. Plain and simple. Blanket statements like “goobermint bad at doing things” are just fuckin stupid, especially for someone who was going on about the “nuances” of universal healthcare lmao

11

Wow, the right wing party that came into power on a platform of privatizing national industries privatized a national industry? Who would’ve ever thought?

8

Mfw the pro-privatization government intentionally starves national industries to justify their privatization, and I actually fall for it lmao

1

Brother that’s literally the first chapter of the Thatcher/Reagan playbook. If your goal is to shrink the government, and privatize programs, but the people like the programs you want to privatize, then you have a problem. You need to make those programs unpopular. So what do you do? You starve them until they start to fail, and then you point to the failure and say “See? Government doesn’t ever work” and then sell it off to the highest bidder. This is Neoliberalism 101 stuff.

1

Both parties have abided by the politics of Ronald Reagan since the 1990s. Reagan became THE Republican. Clinton marked a notable neoliberal shift within the Democratic Party, pushing similar privatization policies under the banner of “reform.” If you think the Reagan playbook is irrelevant in 2026 America, then this isn’t a conversation worth having, even with your economic credentials. Dismissing the current influence of Reagan tells me you ain’t up on Political Science at all.

1

I think you’re confusing me and that other guy for being the same person.

1

Anonymous troybolton12 29w

We finally rest, and watch the sun rise on a grateful universe

1

Anonymous #3 29w

the middle class just fills the same role bro

1

Anonymous #3 29w

unless money is obsolete

1

Anonymous troybolton12 29w

They all say this but they never do, if they wanted to leave they would have done so, look at New York City

1

Anonymous #13 29w

Clearly they have not experienced the trickle down economics yet 🤩

1

Yet we had the most thriving middle class when the wealthy and corporations paid more in taxes in this country

7