- 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 5w

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

7

Anonymous #5 5w

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 5w

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 5w

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 5w

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

8

Anonymous #1 4w

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 4w

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 4w

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

did you have anything else to say besides “nuh uh” whilst misspelling “wreck”?

1

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

1

Are the “basic economics” in the room with us right now? oh no are they talking to you?! surely you have a source right? Because i can provide one regarding the economic growth that occurred while there was a >90% marginal tax rate in place

1

you must be failing, or a first year.

1

Anonymous #6 4w

or just disingenuous as fuck.

1

Anonymous #6 4w

and that one major spike in the modern century is Covid-related, hence why it lines up with a minor recession

1

you obviously didn’t see my comment already discussing that massive spike related to the GLOBAL pandemic; which is indicative of the global markets recovering from the crash that we suffered under the pandemic. you’re both an Econ major and an imbecile :)

1

see that’s something you have to provide sources for, rather than just claim bullshit out of your own biased spite. taxes, statistically, do contribute to the GDP, and having a higher tax rate statistically correlates to a higher GDP; hence why we see that period of small growth whilst still being in plenty of wars (the Vietnam war specifically, as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc etc)

1

Anonymous #6 4w

are you trying to imply that the Korean War is responsible for that massive gdp spike, and not a top marginal tax rate of 91% against the top earners (which was in place in q3 of 1950)? unless you have a source that directly supports your claim, respectfully shut your mouth ;)

1

Anonymous #6 4w

(the reason why I bring up the other wars, is because based on your own argument, we’d have similar gdp spikes during our periods of industry reinvestment during those wars)

1

Ended 1945, you utter imbecile.

1

the Korean War however, was from 1950-1953.

1

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

6

and we were 5 years out of world war 2, so like I said, unless you can source a claim that actually supports your argument, respectfully go fuck yourself lmfao

1

Anonymous #6 4w

Cite a source** not “source a claim”

1

you are the one who claimed that the gdp spike was a result of it, so the burden of proof is on you. a question is not evidence, surely you must’ve learned something about citing sources in your time as an Econ major? or did you cheat your way through and think no one would notice?

1

Anonymous #6 4w

(my money is on the latter, for clarification)

1

so you can surely cite a source if it’s that easy, right? unless you’re just bullshitting, like we know you are.

1

and it was taught to you to only look things up and never confirm their validity, nor to cite where you got said information?

1

Anonymous #6 4w

Everything aside, you do see the issue in that right?

1

and how does anyone know you actually have a “formal education” in the topic when you can’t even engage in the most basic level of academic integrity? it sounds like you’re lying about your background in order to garner some type or perceived “authority” in a topic you’re so clearly bullshitting on.

1

Anonymous #6 4w

Type of*

1

are there any statistics in there to support the claim? When you’re citing right-wing think tanks as a supported source, that damages your credibility going back to the topic of citations, which you should’ve learned about if you actually earned an economics degree, you need to SIFT through sources to determine any potential biases they may contain; hence why it’s recommended to not utilize opinionated sources like think tanks, and rather to utilize academic studies and pure statistics

6

you apparently do because you think it qualifies you to discredit statistics in favor of your opinionated biases. if your claim, and the claim of the FEE, were true, we’d see similar economic growth continuing into the 21st century under other wars, specifically Afghanistan.

1

Here’s another of their opinion pieces, dr zitelmann is a historian and sociologist, not an economist btw :)

1

it’s ironic you think that me, a STEM major teaching you about the proper method for sourcing your claims, is a liberal arts major (as if there’s anything wrong with that, coming from you, an Econ major who can’t even comprehend their own major)

1

and yes, a think tank. You do know what those are, right?

1

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

have you offered a single statistic to support your claims? (Which is all they are at this rate, claims (baseless I might add given your refusal to support them)) I’m pointing out the nature of the FEE because you’re attempting to use opinion pieces as if they’re statistics.

1

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

Anonymous #13 4w

there’s no point, this guy is citing think pieces and AI summaries in the face of statistics; I almost feel bad with how bad they’ve been failed by their institution if they actually are a college student

10

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

I’m saying your ability to support your own claims is nonexistent, and the fact that you couldn’t deduce that given the context of this conversation speaks waves about your ability to engage in critical thought.

1

and with all due respect your professor should’ve taught you how to actually research and support your own claims, but yes, it’s important to consider how statistics is being represented to ensure it’s not skewed: this exact topic is discussed whilst also learning how to SIFT through sources :)

1

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

I directly provided you with year over year GDP changes from 1947-current, and you provided a think tank. If you want to be taken seriously and/or engage in these conversations, you need to know how to actually support your arguments. otherwise, why should any of us entertain your nonsense when you’re not even capable of supporting yourself?

1

if you don’t know the meaning of the acronym, SIFT, then you’re proving my point regarding your lack of knowledge regarding proper citations. https://guides.lib.uchicago.edu/c.php?g=1241077&p=9082322

1

Anonymous #6 4w

it’s okay if you would like to believe that economic growth was solely spurred by a wartime economy, but the issue is you’re refusing to back that up (aside from a single opinion piece, which does not qualify as an actual academic source)

1

Anonymous #6 4w

Lastly, if you were to actually cite some empirical evidence that supported your claim, I would be willing to reconsider my own (as all mature individuals do), but can you see why we’re stuck in this loop? all I’m asking for is for you to materially support your claim, or otherwise acknowledge if you’re not able to.

0

Anonymous troybolton12 4w

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

1

Anonymous #3 4w

the middle class just fills the same role bro

1

Anonymous #3 4w

unless money is obsolete

1

Anonymous troybolton12 4w

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 4w

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