But then, those who can't get enough of the premium business are forced to serve the larger but less profitable middle, and resent it. So they turn to grift. By contrast, regions without a large ultrarich market get structured to serve the middle class.
-
-
The entire inequality debate has been pwned by a socialist narrative, which is part of the problem. There is a stronger, more robust, capitalist argument inequality: it is inefficient, it kills wealth-building, amplifies extractive economics, and erodes competence.
Show this thread -
It might seem self-serving to argue for a middle-class focused economic model, but both trickle-down (from wealth favoring policies) and trickle-up (UBI etc) are wishful thinking. Middle-out is the only thing that improves all 3 classes. Bourgeoise virtues.
Show this thread -
Competence erosion is the biggest risk. And it hurts all 3 classes. The wealth of the rich is of no use if there's no competent people to pay to do what you need. And without competence in the middle, the grind at the bottom turns into increasingly unbearable oppression.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's running pretty solid in Central Europe for a good 50 years now. Half a century. It's basically a Grift Epoch. Region has vast history in it though, u mentioned 'traditional' societies. 1/3
-
We steadily moved away from it riding the waves of modernity, and kinda fallen back to it due to Soft Communism. 2/3
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.