Yeah, and you are flat out wrong. Any system that relies on slave labor is not “working out well for them.”
The “Them” is the problem. Who is “Them” in your premise? It certainly isnt the people who are actually creating the items, literally providing the products that fuel the economy. The only “Them” benefitting from this system is the Government and their own Oligarchs, and they benefit at the detriment of their citizens.
Your statement that it is working out well for them is Sociopathic. The government shouldn’t be benefitting themselves, a government exists to benefit the people, ALL the people, not just the rich ones.
He said it is always better for the economy(economic growth) to give more purchasing power to the people. This is false, as the approach China takes is quite effective.
I do not advocate for it, and, in fact, oppose it for reasons I already mentioned, but this is irrelevant.
Once again, you are advocating for the Chinese system of slave labor to drive their economy. By that logic, you would also support the American slave system of the 17th/18th/19th centuries, because it “worked out well for them.” Yeah, for the pantation owners, not their slaves.
The only reason you would advocate for such a system is if you would personally benefit from it. If you actually would, because you are a wealthy person, then I get it. I hate you, and I want you to pay your fair share of taxes, and stop lobbying for more benefits at my expense, but I get it.
But if you are just a regular citizen, who goes to work every day, and collected a paycheck, then what the Hell is wrong with you? Why would you encourage such a system as “working out well?” From the perspective of a working class American, what is working out well for the wealthy (Trickle Down Economics) should not be the objective. We should be looking out for solutions that work out well for ALL Americans (Trickle Up Economics), or we will implement a system that benefits everyone EXCEPT the wealthy (Robin Hood Economics).
I’m not blind, YOU are missing the point that an economy based on slave labor is not a good economy because its based on an immoral, unsustainable foundation. It may work for a while, but it will always ultimately fail, because as that system ages, abuses will increase, as the slave population grows, and the inequailty will eventually boil over, to the severe detriment of the few who benefit by that immoral economic system.
Its lIke saying that driving as fast as you can will get you there faster, without regard to the fact that faster speeds reduce fuel economy, and refusing to refuel because it will slow you down. Eventually you will run out of gas and be stranded in the wilderness, surrounded by hostile, angry, HUNGRY animals.
He said it is always better for the economy(economic growth) to give more purchasing power to the people. This is false, as the approach China takes is quite effective.
Lmao, it stimulated the economy, which is what you claimed the opposite approach would achieve. You are arguing in bad faith.
I oppose this policy, fyi. This hurts other economies and makes people poor.
You said it works out well for them, I simply asked who is working out for? What claim did I make? How am I arguing in bad faith?
Ok, sorry. I think I answered.
Yeah, and you are flat out wrong. Any system that relies on slave labor is not “working out well for them.”
The “Them” is the problem. Who is “Them” in your premise? It certainly isnt the people who are actually creating the items, literally providing the products that fuel the economy. The only “Them” benefitting from this system is the Government and their own Oligarchs, and they benefit at the detriment of their citizens.
Your statement that it is working out well for them is Sociopathic. The government shouldn’t be benefitting themselves, a government exists to benefit the people, ALL the people, not just the rich ones.
Oh my god is nuance not a thing on Lemmy?
He said it is always better for the economy(economic growth) to give more purchasing power to the people. This is false, as the approach China takes is quite effective.
I do not advocate for it, and, in fact, oppose it for reasons I already mentioned, but this is irrelevant.
Once again, you are advocating for the Chinese system of slave labor to drive their economy. By that logic, you would also support the American slave system of the 17th/18th/19th centuries, because it “worked out well for them.” Yeah, for the pantation owners, not their slaves.
The only reason you would advocate for such a system is if you would personally benefit from it. If you actually would, because you are a wealthy person, then I get it. I hate you, and I want you to pay your fair share of taxes, and stop lobbying for more benefits at my expense, but I get it.
But if you are just a regular citizen, who goes to work every day, and collected a paycheck, then what the Hell is wrong with you? Why would you encourage such a system as “working out well?” From the perspective of a working class American, what is working out well for the wealthy (Trickle Down Economics) should not be the objective. We should be looking out for solutions that work out well for ALL Americans (Trickle Up Economics), or we will implement a system that benefits everyone EXCEPT the wealthy (Robin Hood Economics).
Are you blind?
I am saying that even though it is beneficial for the economy, this is still a bad policy that I oppose.
I’m not blind, YOU are missing the point that an economy based on slave labor is not a good economy because its based on an immoral, unsustainable foundation. It may work for a while, but it will always ultimately fail, because as that system ages, abuses will increase, as the slave population grows, and the inequailty will eventually boil over, to the severe detriment of the few who benefit by that immoral economic system.
Its lIke saying that driving as fast as you can will get you there faster, without regard to the fact that faster speeds reduce fuel economy, and refusing to refuel because it will slow you down. Eventually you will run out of gas and be stranded in the wilderness, surrounded by hostile, angry, HUNGRY animals.
Well they can always change their policy, and once their economy sufficiently grows they likely will. They are very far from a revolution.
Did I say that?
You said it stimulates economies.
Where did I say that? You maybe confused me with someone else.
Read the parent comment then.
Did you? Who is benefiting from the arrangement?