I was gripping about this last night. Actors practically whispering. Had to move to headphones. Many times i wonder why the industry can’t seem to properly mic the scene or pick a decent cohesive/compatible decimal range.
I don’t get it. Billionaires do billionaires things, but this meme being made the same week as a liberal policy requiring fair taxes for the rich to cover social security for the next 75 years makes this poster 100% out of touch.
Liberal in economics and Liberal in US politics mean two very distinct and different things. It’s like the way a ‘runner’ in a race is different to a ‘runner’ in a restaurant. They’re not the same things at all.
Economic liberalism means free trade and deregulation. If it makes money, it’s good. Neoliberalism is also referred to as ‘hypercapitalism’.
‘Liberal’ in US politics means ‘left of the GOP’ and is its own unique thing. It bears no relation to economic liberalism at all. The two may coincide but they’re independent of one another.
So if your question is in good faith let’s break it down a little.
Capitalism is a economic system. It may have some liberal or conservative slant inherently, but in theory there isn’t anything implicit.
A liberal or conservative economic policy would be how you manage that economic system. Liberal economic policy should tend to favor rules and regulations to account for the flaws of unchecked capitalism. Conservative policy tends towards less regulation, relying on the market system to set prices for goods and services.
Personally, I’m liberal because the ultimate goal for any capitalist is a monopoly. Often in that situation, you get an unequal power dynamic that allows a company to stay ahead of competition or bully them out of the market, preventing the market from setting prices. Additionally liberal policy tries to regulate negative externalities, such as companies dumping chemicals in a river (such as when the Ohio river caught on fire leading to the creation of the EPA). Frankly, these are real problems inherent in capitalism that conservative policy doesn’t address because it makes the rich richer. It’s pretty disingenuous to argue that liberal policy is there to benefit the rich.
Anyway, that’s a super basic breakdown. None of that is say there isn’t corruption from the rich and greedy in politics. Frankly, money equating to political influence is crazy and has allowed the weathly to completely shape world policy. If you want change, look to rank choice voting systems or other ways to move more choice and power back to voters.
I appreciate you trying to answer a question in good faith, but you’re conflating ‘liberal’ with ‘vaguely left-leaning’, and none of what you’ve said makes any sense outside of current US political ‘discourse’ where ‘Liberal’ means ‘slightly left-wing’.
What you describe as liberal economics is closer to Keynsianism or Social Democracy.
In economics, the ‘Liberal’ school of thought is generally against regulation and interference in the market, seeing it as being ‘self-regulating’. In economic terms, Reagan and Thatcher were Liberals - hence them being associated with ‘Neoliberalism’.
The whole thing you said about Capitalism tending towards monopoly is actually a very Marxist/Socialist idea - Liberal economic theory tends to argue that monopolies form because of government and that they wouldn’t occur in a truly free market (although its more nuanced than that, there’s major disagreements over ‘Natural Monopolies’ etc. within the Liberal school). Source: look up any Liberal economist/thinker and their view on monopolies. E.g Friedman, J.S Mill.
Capitalism being an economic system doesn’t make it apolitical. ‘In theory’ Liberalism and Capitalism are very very closely intertwined, it’s not implicit, it’s absolutely explicit if you read any Liberal political or economic theory.
Also the idea of slightly changing our voting systems as the way to drive change is quite hilarious. Sure, moving away from FPTP would probably help a bit, but it’s not like countries with other systems are doing fine. These issues are more fundamental. And historically, fundamental change has never occured through small technical adjustments to political systems.
Uh, liberals tend to want to shift capitalism towards something more equitable - you know, something that doesn’t leave so many people jobless or homeless.
liberals tend to want to shift capitalism towards something more equitable
No, they don’t - they try to reform capitalism to head off revolt against the capitalist status quo. That is why liberal reforms to capitalism (at best) only makes life better for a certain part of the working class - see how Roosevelt’s GI Bill left black vets and their communities out in the cold for an example. When this fails to protect the capitalist order, liberal-types will happily co-operate with fascists to violently repress the working class - see Weimar Germany for an example of that.
If you are the reading type, I’d suggest Clara Mattei’s The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism - I haven’t encountered anyone who explains the history as well as she does.
Liberals are not your friends - Malcolm X was perfectly accurate when he described them as “smiling foxes.”
Meth is a product that was found, and then developed and improved in order to be better at what it does. The expertise demonstrated in the creation of Meth shouldn’t be compared to Facebook, which is just the first product to come out of a market. Facebook hasn’t developed further as a social media platform, it has developed further as a money making device.
You could say Alcohol is the Facebook of drugs. Drugs have developed over a very long time unlike social media, so the history is much greater for this case, but the point is that alcohol, despite not being the best in all categories, is the most popular drug simply because it’s not as harmful as others (such as meth) and has been around for longer than the new, less risky alternatives (such as weed). I’m not considering coffee as a drug for this metaphor. Alcohol is making the most money not because it is good, but because the rest is mostly illegal, and/or less ingrained in social norms and traditions.
Point is, I kind of lost myself along the way and started rambling, comparing Facebook to Meth is not fair because Meth is not socially accepted while Facebook is, maybe compare Reddit to Meth, idk
There's 0 real economists who hold anything close to these views. What a stupid take. Before you downvote, I ask that you find a single source that contradicts my claim. Since all liberal economics is like that, it should be easy, right?
Sure, real economists don’t explicitly hold those views. But the kinds of metrics and models liberal economists are fond of using basically lead to that flowchart.
sir, this is a Wendies meme. In the end it boils down to the capitalist goverments bayling out those who don’t need it (billionaires and millionaires) and giving credit for virtually nothing. Ofc it’s a simplification since this is a meme, not a chart for econ class
But that’s how capitalism works. You invest your money into something instead of using it on yourself.
And in exchange for the risk taking, because each investment is a huge risk, you become (in case of stocks) a shareholder. And a as a shareholder and risk taker, you get compensated for your risk taking with dividends.
Why invest your own cash into something and take a risk without getting something in exchange? That would be considered stupid.
I invested into Wirecard back then and guess where the money went… Investments are bound to risk. And taking a risk must be rewarded.
I believe that’s how it works, but I just don’t understand how that makes any sense. They’re just playing with numbers in the air, making a line diagraph go up and down… I just don’t get it.
that’s billions of tax payers money with the tax burden being disproportionately heavy for the 90% while the 10% pay less and less taxes the richer they are
I like how on lemmy you see both how much upvotes and downvotes you have, on reddit you could have a score of 1 and don’t know much has happened, but with lemmy you could have 50 upvotes and 49 downvotes, making you really think about it…
The entire “drama” around Fable’s MC not being conventionally attractive is one of the worst things to come out of Twitter. Such a large amount of people genuinely believe that women in media literally only exist to be objectified and sexualized. It’s on a long list of proof that gamer culture as a whole is one of the most toxic, misogynistic, and delusional cultures online and in the first world.
Its the same as how the vast majority of the US citizens hate both main political parties, but the majority also says “I wont vote for a third party because they could never win.”
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.