Definitely not against experimenting with certain kinds of wealth redistribution (e.g. UBI), but it's weird that these convos sometimes start with "which policy should we use to make the wealthy less wealthy?" rather than "which policy should we use to make the poor less poor?"
-
Wonder if there's some sort of personality-type that sees things as zero-sum, and another that sees things as a "rising tides, etc" outlook...
Even if this were closer to zero-sum, it's weird to start with "this is how we're going to pay for it" before you've got a very promising "this is what we're going to do." These convos are counterproductive; nobody wants to be compelled to write a blank check for a black box
-
-
I think it’s less of a zero sum thing, more the conversation devolving over time to frustration/anger at inaction. It’s a subtlety I’ve picked up on but still find difficult to articulate. They don’t decry wealth, just *in the context of* ongoing poverty/lack of opportunity.
-
So what starts ~“there is so much wealth in this country, why does Flint still not have safe drinking water, or schools in Baltimore so underfunded they’re 50°? These are solvable, as evidenced by record wealth,profits,GDP” -> “even if it were zero sum it’d work!” -> angry tweets
- Show replies
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.