The Hot Topic forums are dominated by the big concerns of our time, Trump, the election, coronavirus, and racial prejudices in our society, and rightly so.
But we have some folks who don't feel comfortable getting into debates about differing opinions on those issues, and I thought it might invite more dialogue and disagreement, without devolving to name calling or anger, if we went a bit more abstract in our discussion. This is still political, and still possibly contentious, touching as it does, on the underlying economic ideologies that so often inform political disagreement. But if we stick to the ideas, and not to the people who hold them (because, frankly, they are often flawed people for other reasons beyond their economic stances), maybe we can have a discussion that really sways people one way or the other. Probably not, but it still might be fun .
I'll start us off with a video that at least claims to undercut a fundamental assumption about high tax societies--that they are anti-rich. The video, in fact, argues that high tax, Nordic socialist countries are not only the best places to live if you are "poor," but also the places you are most likely to become rich, as defined by anyone with a net worth over $30 million, and even ultra rich, defined as being a billionaire. So, the countries that are taxing a great deal to ensure a high quality of life for all citizens are not in fact taking opportunity from some to accumulate vast wealth, it seems. That seems to fly in the face of a lot of conventional wisdom, and my own assumptions! Can you have your cake AND eat it too?! And if so, why don't we all want some of that Nordic socialist cake! More education for all= more wealth for all, and more folks from the bottom can work their way to the top. An educated, healthy population with a higher chance to get rich, and less poverty because of high wages for all, who can argue against that?! Of course, he also brings up a potential counter is job less to computers taking jobs. But then new jobs are created to replace the crappy ones, and it also forces innovations to do away with menial, boring work. New technology leads to more efficiency and more profit, and their unions accept downsizing and salary caps on high skilled labor, which is also good for business, because they know their is social safety net to protect those no longer needed by a company. So, yeah, counter that .
Now, I know Ted-Talks often are not founded on credible data, but they are easy to watch and respond to, and often entertaining. So I post this not as proof of a position, but as an entertaining articulation of it. And I'd like responses, by folks on both sides of things. I'd especially love to hear from those more conservative minded people, and most especially those who may have felt, since Trump has been elected, that they don't have an opportunity to argue for their way of thinking, without their argument inevitably getting conflated with the other political positions of Trump and others on the right that you may not agree with.
Basically, if you are a fiscal conservative uneasy with the economic shift of the far left movement in the Democratic party (though that is likely overstated, based on the current POTUS nominee and the vast majority of Democratic senators and congress people), I'd like you to chime in and debate those here that are left of you economically, ideally sidestepping the other problematic issues of your party at this point.
But we have some folks who don't feel comfortable getting into debates about differing opinions on those issues, and I thought it might invite more dialogue and disagreement, without devolving to name calling or anger, if we went a bit more abstract in our discussion. This is still political, and still possibly contentious, touching as it does, on the underlying economic ideologies that so often inform political disagreement. But if we stick to the ideas, and not to the people who hold them (because, frankly, they are often flawed people for other reasons beyond their economic stances), maybe we can have a discussion that really sways people one way or the other. Probably not, but it still might be fun .
I'll start us off with a video that at least claims to undercut a fundamental assumption about high tax societies--that they are anti-rich. The video, in fact, argues that high tax, Nordic socialist countries are not only the best places to live if you are "poor," but also the places you are most likely to become rich, as defined by anyone with a net worth over $30 million, and even ultra rich, defined as being a billionaire. So, the countries that are taxing a great deal to ensure a high quality of life for all citizens are not in fact taking opportunity from some to accumulate vast wealth, it seems. That seems to fly in the face of a lot of conventional wisdom, and my own assumptions! Can you have your cake AND eat it too?! And if so, why don't we all want some of that Nordic socialist cake! More education for all= more wealth for all, and more folks from the bottom can work their way to the top. An educated, healthy population with a higher chance to get rich, and less poverty because of high wages for all, who can argue against that?! Of course, he also brings up a potential counter is job less to computers taking jobs. But then new jobs are created to replace the crappy ones, and it also forces innovations to do away with menial, boring work. New technology leads to more efficiency and more profit, and their unions accept downsizing and salary caps on high skilled labor, which is also good for business, because they know their is social safety net to protect those no longer needed by a company. So, yeah, counter that .
Now, I know Ted-Talks often are not founded on credible data, but they are easy to watch and respond to, and often entertaining. So I post this not as proof of a position, but as an entertaining articulation of it. And I'd like responses, by folks on both sides of things. I'd especially love to hear from those more conservative minded people, and most especially those who may have felt, since Trump has been elected, that they don't have an opportunity to argue for their way of thinking, without their argument inevitably getting conflated with the other political positions of Trump and others on the right that you may not agree with.
Basically, if you are a fiscal conservative uneasy with the economic shift of the far left movement in the Democratic party (though that is likely overstated, based on the current POTUS nominee and the vast majority of Democratic senators and congress people), I'd like you to chime in and debate those here that are left of you economically, ideally sidestepping the other problematic issues of your party at this point.
Comment